Posts tagged branding
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 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.
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!
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.
burger mcsausage unoriginal smarts
Jul 21st
so. This television advertisement introducing the Burger King breakfast sausage biscuit (the one where the creepy king breaks into McDonald’s headquarters to steal the mcmuffin recipe):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZF86Rb-uFNE
The execution doesn’t confuse me but the effort makes me pause and scratch my head a little.
But I guess if you have more money then you know what to do with and you see research numbers that show “people consider McDonalds for breakfast and not Burger King” and you already know what McDonalds best breakfast seller is then you spend some of that money saying “hey we have the same thing just in case you didn’t know.”
There are several things I do like about this:
Competitive but not competitive. It’s odd but they are going for the competitor jugular in an interesting way. They state that they are going to offer an unoriginal product (in that they are simply stealing someone else’s ‘good idea’). But. That also implies that it’s not rocket science stuff. That maybe the original McD’s breakfast biscuit just isn’t that “unique.” (clever guys those Crispin fellows – Crispin is burger kings’ agency of record).
No superiority. Simply “hey, if you like us <burger king> and you want exactly what you could get if you stopped at the bastards down the street here you go. We have it for you. We are willing to copy if it makes you happy.” Kind of shows you like your customers and will do whatever it takes to make them happy (even steal I guess).
And then the creepy king. Here is where I give Crispin the highest marks of all.
For years while brilliant the agency has been “one-off” brilliant. One great brilliant idea. Non campaignable. Lose client after one brilliant idea because they didn’t really have a great follow-up.
(Look. The BMW mini campaign the agency built their main reputation on was not a creative messaging brilliance idea it was a tactical brilliance concept … which I give them kudos for just don’t want to oversell their brilliance … or misidentify it).
Anyway. Back to the creepy king. Alex Bogusky is our generation’s Bill Bernbach. And he has matured (in my humble opinion) to a point where he is truly earning that pedestal. The Burger King creepy king is a great showcase for why I believe it to be so. The young Bogusky would probably have shoved a brand/company mnemonic device sustaining multiple campaigns over time so far up a client’s ass a proctologist would have been envious. But. He (or at least he encouraged his teams) stepped up and said “well, let’s make the best of it and I want to do it my way …. creatively and interestingly and sometimes creepy when we are wrong in the execution but sticking with it and getting it right.” They have made it work. And made it work over time. They have a sustainable mnemonic device (or branding element or whatever you want to call it).
Anyway.
I slam people but I also want to give some credit where credit is due.
Cannot wait to see what the creepy king does next.
boy scouts part 2
Jul 13th
So. A friend of mine sent me the following link with the Boy Scouts advertising announcement.
http://adsoftheworld.com/media/print/boy_scouts_of_america_prepared
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm ….
Well. Here’s the deal. And I admit. I may not be the best person to be providing a point of view here because I care about the Boy Scouts (therefore I may be biased toward being critical). But. I have a couple of problems … oops .. issues with this effort.
1. No one cares if you (or your company) are 100 years old if that is all you say. If you are waiting to let people arrive at their own conclusion (and you are hoping against hope that they believe it means “hey, I am reliable and you can count on me”), you are screwed. Because most people will suggest 100 years old means you are … well … old … and not relevant. (hmmmmmmmmm … I believe that would be the existing issue the Boy Scouts are dealing with so maybe the intent of this advertising is to support and encourage that belief? Ok. If that is the intent they nailed it).
2. I don’t really see why I would choose to either be a Boy Scout or have my son (if I had one) become a Boy Scout. (ok. what I am saying is leveraging off a 100 year heritage is not compelling enough to make me choose)
3. I would be fine with leveraging a message from 100 years if it were buttressed with some unexpected possibly contradictory thought (anyone surprised here?) that made people think about Boy Scouts differently. (best example I can think of continues to be the Girl Scouts ad I posted once).
Girl Scout example:
Ok. That is the Girl Scouts.
But. In the end I would suggest the Boy Scouts truly missed an opportunity.
The Boy Scouts don’t do a lot of advertising. Therefore missing opportunities like this one means they had better be prepared to continue dealing with the relevancy issues they have already been dealing with.
Be prepared to be called old (or maybe better said “continue to be called old).
Be prepared to explain why the heck they spend money to say nothing like this.
Oh.
And be prepared to do something else.
I do love the decision on the production style. It looks beautiful and classic.
The truly missed opportunity is that if they had put a non classic looking evocative message on that production style they would have had the opportunity to suggest that Boy Scouts actually has both those characteristics – classic & contemporary.
For example (harkening back to my point 3 above) imagine if they used one of these images with a headline that says something like “100 years of values in every One of our scouts”:
Are they exactly right?
Nope.
Would people take a look?
Yup.
Would people start thinking that maybe the Boy Scouts were changing? Maybe.
Instead?
The Boy Scout just look classically old and dated.
Awesome organization. Poor communications execution.
a trip for Advertising & Marketing people
Jul 8th
(this is about the Duke antiquities library in Durham NC)
Okay. If you are in a marketing department or an ad agency or anything to do with the art and science of communication and consumer behavior and you can only afford to send your “brightest minds” on one getaway field trip over a two year span … this is your trip investment. I guarantee it will be the best investment you will ever make.
Visit the Duke Antiquities Library for their Advertising archives.
Duke antiquities library has the largest archive of advertising – non video – materials in the world.
No kidding. A university in North Carolina with the most advertising stuff.
It could also be called the graveyard of materials for the dead agencies. But it also has historical files from existing agencies (JWT being the largest contributor).
I am an advertising history lover. And I will always bleed Thompson blue (JWT’s old color … I think they are paprika, melon and periwinkle now … or something ..) and handling some of the ancient but well crafted simple advertisements and presentations and handbooks was awe inspiring in considering the art & science of communication. In addition you can see how advertising and communications impacted human behavior, and buying behavior, through education of new ideas and new ways of doing things. We often forget the positive role advertising has had on every day life and a trip here will quickly remind you of many of the positive things and thoughts communicated.
A visit to this place can show you how long we have been talking about the same things (make sure you see the 1950s ad talking about integrating the message throughout all aspects). There are agency house ads from the 1920’s talking about “differentiation,” “how much money to spend on marketing,” and even “advertising can only get you an invitation the sale has to be done by the person.” Oh. They also talk about packaging as a medium (1920’s), effective impressions versus soft branding (1950’s) and “saying one thing well in communication (1920’s). They just don’t use all the fancy words we use nowadays. Great stuff.
It can also be a place to help you think and not just revisit “old things”. Great work and thinking begets new great thinking and ideas. I cannot think of a better location for “thought fodder”.
A sample of what you can see is already in the Duke Libraries’ Digital Collections:
- Ad*Access (1911 to 1955)
Presents images and information on over 7,000 advertisements for products in the following categories:
-
- Beauty & Hygiene
- Radio
- Television
- Transportation
- World War II
You can search terms for ethnic groups, as well as other descriptors (women, children, etc.).
- adViews (1950s to 1980s)
Historic commercials for a wide range of products. This resource is organized by company name, and continues to have additions of new commercials.
- Emergence of Advertising in America (1850s to 1920s)
Provides access to over 11,000 images of advertisements and early advertising publications. Stereotypes of ethnicity and gender roles are found in many of the ads.
I won’t go into all the detail on all the material they have but the agencies alone are a ‘who’s who’:
- JWT archives, D’Arcy Masius Benton & Bowles, Wells Rich Greene, Warwick Baker & O’Neill, and Bates Worldwide.
And they have non agency material from outdoor advertising association and person collections and personal papers and … well … the list is too long to type.
The staff is awesome. Accommodating (they can set up any type of exhibit you want) to all and any requests. They can talk extensively about everything they have. They can dig up things you never knew existed (and you would be delighted they did uncover it).
And the location ain’t bad either. You are not only on a great campus in a neat area but the archives themselves is like stepping back into time in an old library with shelves of ancient books and manuscripts.
If you love history and you love communication you will love this visit.
I, personally, was like a kid in a candy store.
It’s a trip you have to make at least once in your lifetime if you are in the communications business.
america
Jul 6th
So. For the 4th (well. it would have been the fourth except my site still wasn’t fixed in the 48 hour ‘guesstimate’ so now I am doing the 4th post on not the 4th) I wanted to talk about America.
Ok. Maybe rather just the attitude of what makes America America.
Kinda the thing that keeps us going and doing and pisses a lot of other countries off because it is perceived as arrogance (and I would imagine that is part of the attitude … some bad comes with the good).
Anyway. There is a whole new thing in the branding world called “nation branding.” In fact when I first started my site I did a post on the “rebranding of Nigeria.” I think Switzerland, Slovenia and several other countries have done ‘nation branding’ campaigns. It is interesting because when I was at J. Walter Thompson and we discussed branding we had an amazing presentation we would give ending with what we suggested was the greatest brand story – America (or the United States of America). Combination of culture and constitution and leaders guiding the ‘brand’ through critical transition moments to insure the ‘brand’ crossed generations and maintained its relevance.
But. I am not going to suggest in this post we do some ‘branding campaign.’ However I do believe we, as in “we the people,” would do well to remember our brand. Oh. And by “we the people” I also include our leaders.
So. for the 4th I want to take a minute to talk about this brand, this country I am proud to be a part of, a country I believe is struggling a bit and a country which as a whole is stronger than its parts (if we would remind ourselves of this on occasion).
America is a doing country. It is our culture. It is our ethos.
In fact, in a somewhat arrogant, or adolescent way, we believe we ARE the original doing country.
We don’t want people telling us what to do and holding us to their standards.
We want to discover things and learn how to do things our own way.
And, you know what? That is awesome. And we should be remembering it and focusing on it and being ‘as one’ as a country.
Ok. So what do I mean by “doing?”
Well. If you want to see something done, just tell Americans it can`t be done.
Just say it`s impossible to fly to the moon, or no one can hit more than 61 home runs in a season, or run a mile in less than 4 minutes or create a handheld computer or even stuff 20 people into a phone booth. Dangle the undoable in front of Americans and you may as well consider it done.
When did this ‘doing’ culture begin?
When our forefathers came to America and viewed this huge undeveloped land.
Their first thought wasn’t “let’s take a nap.” It was “let’s get to work.”
We are doers.
We are workers.
And above this culture of doing we have a culture of how we act while doing built around an amazing democracy with a somewhat unique ability to maintain freedom of choice and expression in our doing and how we act.
Which means above all we are like ambitious teens.
We are the adolescent in a world of staid and unoriginal adults.
We rebelled against our parents in our youth (the British king) and, honestly, our rebellious spirit has never ended.
Our culture has adolescence traits:
- intense focus on the “now”
- dramatic mood swings
- a constant need for exploration and challenge to authority
- a fascination with extremes
- openness to change and reinvention
- a strong belief that mistakes warrant second chances.
Our culture contains the trappings of adolescence (Coke – the drink, Nike shoes, fast food, blue jeans, and loud, violent movies).
Even the people we love (celebrities and such) fascinate us in their resistance to growing up. They are forever young at heart, crazy, up one day and down the next, one day invincible, one day totally rejected – and they always come back. They are the “eternal adolescents” many Americans would love to be. Our celebrities are victorious through nonconformity.
We are America. A country 230+ years young. Our culture isn’t nearly as old as the French, Italian and German cultures (all of which existed long before the current nations of France, Italy, and Germany). We are adolescents in a world of adults.
But we are ambitious adolescents. And it has evolved as it did because the original settlers, and later the waves of immigrants who came to our shores, brought with them the necessary attitude of nonconformity necessary to not only “pick up and move” in the first place but also to survive the conditions of this vast country.
This included traits such as Puritanism, a strong work ethic, the belief that people deserve a second chance, and putting a premium on success all helped us to survive in this new world.
So maybe Nike was so successful because they captured the spirit of America within themselves: “Just do it.”
Think about it.
Our heroes are athletes, entrepreneurs, police officers, firefighters, and soldiers – all people who take action. We may respect thinkers, but we don’t celebrate them nearly as much as we do our action figures.
And as doers we have had to learn everything ourselves – through trial and error. Learning from our mistakes not only allowed us to survive, but also helped us to grow into a powerful and hugely successful country. We have been rewarded for our ability to pick ourselves up off the ground and do things better the second and third times.
Trying, failing, learning from our mistakes, and coming back stronger than ever is an essential part of the American archetype.
And doing is embodied not only in our 24/7bto do lists but in our attitude toward work.
Americans celebrate work and turn successful businesspeople into celebrities. Donald Trump and Bill Gates are pop stars. Stephen T. Covey, Jack Welch, and Lee Iacocca are mega-selling authors. Instead of great literature (I don’t count Patterson or Clancy as great literary options) our best-sellers include The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People and Good to Great.
We associate work success as ways to get to know people, excite children, keep family going, or plan your future. Work can make you believe you have ‘made it’ in American culture.
As Clotaire Rapaille would say: the American Culture Code for work is WHO YOU ARE.
We seek so much meaning in our jobs. If our job feels meaningless, then “who we are” is meaningless as well. If we feel inspired by our job, if we believe that we are doing something worthwhile in our work, that belief bolsters our sense of identity (as a person and ultimately as a country).
Our work ethic is so strong because at the unconscious level, we equate work with who we are and we believe that if we work hard and improve our professional standing, we become better people and a better country.
So. When you read this (despite all your misgivings on how high an importance we attach to work) this explains why a high rate of unemployment creates such a struggle to American ethos. It attacks our inner being of who we are as a culture.
By the way, this doesn’t mean we are a culture only concerned with money.
Clearly, money signifies more to Americans than the means to buy things. It shows us how we’re doing, tells us how far we’ve come from impoverished poor roots. Money reminds you that your business is successful, that you’ve worked hard to get something, that you can fulfill your responsibilities, that you are appreciated, and that you are moving up to the next level.
So. Here is what I think.
We are a doing country. And things like unemployment and an ineffective government stop people from doing. And that strikes at the core of who we are and how we feel. It strikes at us emotionally maybe even more so than physically.
The truth is 80% of our life is emotion and only 20% is intellect (I made that truth up).
How we feel is something deeper and stronger and it’s that something inside that drives us as a ‘brand.’
And America doesn’t ‘feel’ right (or let’s say we are ‘unaligned’ on what we are all about).
The government is lost. Well. Maybe, most importantly, they cannot agree on what we should “do.” and their indecision is cutting us at our core.
Our leaders are not aligned.
Unemployment is high (which as noted unsettles us at the core).
Our soul is in doing.
We will find our way back by saying “let’s go to work” on something.
Something big.
Something … well … impossible.
Because in the end we are dreamers. We do because we dream … and dream big. Clotaire Rapaille also suggested this. He said that the American Culture Code for America is DREAM.
I don’t hesitate to say I love being an American. I won’t suggest I am not frustrated. I won’t suggest that I know the exact solution. I will suggest that if our leaders would remind themselves who we are culturally they would better serve us. Serve us in giving us an impossible assignment and let us go do it.
For in the end, for all the culture code speak and thoughts about what makes us happy, America is pretty simple. We make the impossible possible. And that is what makes America, well, America.
Happy 4th.
Note: I drew heavily upon Clotaire Rapaille’s Culture Code learnings but only used portions that I truly believed in and cut out the things that I don’t agree with him on.
charging to learn corporate culture
Jun 2nd
So. I just heard the craziest thing I have heard in awhile (it may not be true but it’s worth ranting about).
I heard Zappos is charging people to come in and do a 3 day seminar (visit, exploration, whatever) on their culture and building a culture.
Okay.
What’s up with that?
Seriously.
Who would pay to do that?
Maybe more importantly … why would you pay to do that?
Ok. Look. I get the fact that it’s different world today when trying to make your company (or products or services) into a “brand.” With internet connecting everyone with every minute tidbit of information companies have to become a little more transparent whether they like it or not. An unhappy customer or a disgruntled employee can spread a bad experience faster than ever before.
I guess the good news is that the reverse is true as well. A great experience with a company can be read by millions of people almost instantaneously as well.
But, c’mon, the fundamentals are exactly the same as in the past. The best brand names were always the ones who emanated from the internal culture of the company. And by “best” I mean the ones that have lasted and passed the tests of time. Everyone knows that. Heck. Everyone knew that.
I don’t care if there are a zillion touchpoints today versus something less than a zillion before. The fundamental issue was always the same. You should attempt to make each touchpoint be positive. And each touchpoint should be a reflection of your character (or company culture). Because then (which makes it sound as if it was sometime prehistoric) you couldn’t anticipate problems just as you cannot today. Truly the only thing you could, and can, control is who you are and what you are selling (or offering).
In addition. We have always known the power of the employees in the marketplace (managing perceptions or ‘brand’ if you want to use that word). I know for a fact even in my ancient past in my first job it was important that even when I wasn’t “on the clock” I was always “on the clock” with regard to the company I worked for. Sure. I may have bitched some but in every instance I knew I represented the company in some form or fashion.
Would that stop me from getting shitfaced and dancing on a bar? Nope.
Would it stop me from denigrating the company, our clients, their products and what we (I) did for a living? Yup.
We didn’t need handbooks to talk about culture in those days.
We understood it.
We knew every employee had the ability to create a positive or negative impression.
We also knew that culture wasn’t just about whatever it was we were selling. It was an attitude. It was a character. We weren’t cloned but it was certainly a culture. And, sure, there were aspects of our culture that bled into “customer service” or “customer experience” but they were simply aspects of an overall culture.
Okay. Getting to the point of this post.
So. If you think going someplace to see someone else’s corporate culture and copying it (or copying how it is implemented) is going to work, well, get another job.
- You cannot copy someone’s culture. Period. That’s like saying you want to be someone other than who you are. Your company is made up of your people. Unless you can hire away their people and their management (and management possibly being the most important) you ain’t never gonna be them. So why would I pay to see their culture?
- If you cannot copy their culture you cannot copy how they implement (or the stuff they do to cultivate their culture) the stuff they do within their culture. No can do. Why? Because your culture begets the stuff you do to cultivate it. So if I took all the whiz bang Zappo’s internal things and applied it to my own personality/character/culture … well … some may not come naturally. Because it’s someone else. All that internal culture stuff bubbles out of who you are. Unless you want to try and clone forget it.
some culture chart i wanted to include because i have no clue what is says but its about corporate culture
So. In their words … “At Zappos, our belief is that if you get the culture right, most of the other stuff — like great customer service, or building a great long-term brand, or passionate employees and customers — will happen naturally on its own.”
Do I disagree with them? Shit no.
Do I believe it I some epiphany? Shit no.
Sure. Some companies “lose their way” on his issue (heck. I worked at one of the world’s greatest agencies who had the culture mojo and lost their way by losing sight of its importance). But. I cannot imagine one viable well run company’s leader (or group of leaders) who doesn’t know this and does it in their own way. Every one of us who has ever held a C level position knows that your “brand” is, and should be, simply an extension of your culture (because if it’s not you are screwed if not in the short term definitely in the long term).
Zappos certainly is an excellent example of “how to do it the right way” tactically (I don’t debate that):
- Hiring with an eye on culture first
- Training aspects on what is important to culture (historical knowledge and functional aspects)
- Employee empowerment tactics
- A willingness to hire & fire based on cultural fit (this is actually a biggie)
They are clear in stating their values (although I am not a big fan of the “10 core value list”) and it helps them, within their character, to put a stake in the ground organizationally to measure everyone and provide a north star for actions and decisions and commitment to ‘something’ organizationally:
1) Deliver WOW Through Service
2) Embrace and Drive Change
3) Create Fun and A Little Weirdness
4) Be Adventurous, Creative, and Open-Minded
5) Pursue Growth and Learning
6) Build Open and Honest Relationships With Communication
7) Build a Positive Team and Family Spirit
Do More With Less
9) Be Passionate and Determined
10) Be Humble
By the way, before all this ‘brand ambassador” and “corporate brand” stuff we used to call it the “DNA of the company”. Just connecting with the company “DNA” which was its’ roots, management/leadership style and personality traits.
Oh. But that was probably developed in the 40’s or 50’s so that was no good.
Anyway.
Visiting some company and paying to learn their culture and how they implement it just seems wacky to me (and an odd way to spend money).
I don’t think you can “learn to build a culture” from someone else. As a leader you build a culture. Your own. Or you are becoming a leader of a company that already has a culture and you are fostering an existing culture. And you do it throughout your organization in all actions big and small. That’s it. No book needed. No class. And certainly no money spent visiting someone whose culture you can’t copy anyway.
Spend the money and buy their shoes. They will like you better anyway.
an interesting company and idea
May 27th
the company is Telaffects
Ok. I don’t write about specific companies and products/services often because, well, I am not really in the endorsement business. But. every once in awhile you run into something you kind of just have to share because it is one of those smaller companies (that always seem to be very very good) and they just need a break and they have a really good idea (or product). This is one of those times (and I actually have another one coming up which is more tightly tied to my desire to build a global children education initiative).
Anyway. With this company idea think the ultimate in creating business through existing customer base. Think appointments, acquisition, acknowledge (with a focus on knowledge). All through an existing list. I would imagine direct marketers would call it list management. These guys aren’t just managing a list. They manage knowledge – one customer at a time (and accumulate, assimilate and develop action plans). Yeah. Someone is going to use the ‘telemarketing’ word. Well. Not so much here. But I am not gonna haggle over the word and focus on what they can do:
- Increased quantity and quality appointments between your sales team and your prospect (quality appointments translate to higher closure/more sales)
- Shortened sales cycles by allowing your sales team to focus on closing qualified business rather than prospecting for potential qualified candidates (although this company could do sales if an organization could suck it up and get over the psychological “they could never do it as well as our own people”)
Ultimately they have a nice system for the development and capture of account specific business intelligence designed to educate and prepare your sales personnel prior to engagement with the account decision maker (and this includes all that decision maker contact information that becomes handy in b2b sales and service) with the additional (if not more important) benefit of a centralized customer/prospect knowledge base.
So. While they could certainly build a business from scratch in their system the reality is they have turned the traditional funnel upside down (and I love ideas that turn the traditional upside down).
note: I did not create this funnel and I cannot remember who made it but I found it when writing this and it fit for visual purposes.
So. This company is called TelAffects. (www.telaffects.com)
The company describes themselves as bridging the gap between sales & marketing (although any CFO would salivate over the business management information he/she could use to manage the balance sheet). I expect they use this phrasing to protect their ass from fearful/insecure sales or marketing executives but the reality is that (when done correctly) this is the b2b customer relationship (management, acquisition, marketing, sales, whatever you want to call it) department of the future.
It is faster, less qualitative, just as human as, and more efficient than a typical existing sales & marketing siloed organization construct.
Before I forget.
Their specific competency statement (on their website): TelAffects combines a consultative selling discipline with operations engineering intelligence to build sales solutions that yield predictable results.
(note: it doesn’t say marketing in there anywhere but trust me it is in what they actually do)
Ultimately this business model (idea) is the hybrid marketing/sales group solution for an organization (which will send the “specialist” lovers in the world through the roof).
But. While this debate, sales & marketing specialists versus sales/marketing hybrid, has raged for years I kind of believe its time is now. Especially in the b2b business.
What I really like about this business concept (well. there are several things actually) is the business “flow” management.
I cannot tell you how many companies I run into with cyclical/seasonal sales cycles that constantly have angst driven discussions on ‘how can I even out my sales’ (which evens out production which evens out inventory which evens out expenses which … well .. you get it).
Well. This Telaffects system not only isolates the ‘truth’ behind the cycles (or maybe better said the pistons in the engine that drive the cycles) it uncovers some customer aspects that could possibly shift some customers in a different sales/decisionmaking cycle. Even better their system truly gathers the information that could possibly help you find new customers (and know what to say and refer to specific examples) to fill out downward portions of the typical annual sales cycle.
The real underlying benefit to this design (the true life blood of any organization) is innovation. Every company knows that their customers are probably the best innovation ideators they have access to. Yet, in a traditional marketing & sales construct the interface people (those most likely to be able to gather the innovation fodder) often aren’t the best people to recognize the best knowledge. So. Telaffects taps into a user-centered innovation design. (which most companies only dream of)
Look. The problem (or maybe better said … the risk) in traditional sales & marketing scenarios is that they have a product which they need to sell and market (regardless of whether it actually has true value or maybe, even worse, the value that is being sold is not the value the customer wants). In fact, in this Telaffects model it is close to the opposite – they understand the market knowledge in as close to a quantitative methodology as you can get and then the company has the opportunity to develop the product or service based on this understanding.
The sad news for marketing groups is that if it is done this way the actual marketing becomes a piece of cake, as products and services are conceived from end-user identified value. Oh. Why is this sad? A company will need less $’s spent on marketing. Uh oh. (hey. and I am a marketing guy)
Ok. So I pointed out all the underlying strategic and infrastructure benefits. And mostly because I believe the long term benefits of the business idea is the real value I have focused on that.
But in today’s short term mentality the idea looks so good it would have been really tempting to focus solely on the short term benefit (ok. because the short term burst of appointments and raw customer data is hard to ignore). Sure. Look at the short term (if you check them out) but the long term benefits if I were managing a company would like one of the best capital expenditures I could ever invest in.
Oh. They have proof. (as I mention short term burst).
They have a bunch of case studies but suffice it to say “Established 152 sales appointments from 2,400 potential accounts” in 1st 6 months. Yeah. That was 1st 6 months. Oh. In the same 6 months. Captured current situation, vendor and competitor intelligence from 400 contacts. Identified actual decision process and timing for 400 accounts (this one is kinda huge and any CFO would drool over this information if accurate).
Beyond the 6 months? Once data normalized you could have accurate (or as accurate as possible) sales forecasting, production forecasting and a slew of cost management ROI type information. These guys would pay out in so many ways I cannot think of a reason I wouldn’t do it if I were in the b2b business (and possibly some ‘to consumer’ segments that have b2b feel … like large private investment in the financial world as an example).
r
So. Why did I write about these guys?
- Immediate response. In today’s world I would have quick sales and quick market/customer information (so if I were in a new C level position this would have me rockin’ in 6 months)
- Addressing the budget. B2B has always been the battleground for marketing spending (i.e., why waste money on marketing versus sales). And direct marketing has always claimed it has eliminated the “I just don’t know which half of my advertising is working.” (yeah. right.)
But the TelAffects concept more closely addresses what Joe Kennedy supposedly said to his son (JFK) ‘Dear Jack: Don’t buy a single vote more than is necessary. I’ll help you win this election, but I’ll be damned if I’m going to pay for a landslide!’”
This model does about as good a job as you can find that matches up budget to results in a business model.
- The long long term. If it works why do you need a full marketing and sales department? Staffing becomes easier. You don’t need facilitators you need experts in responding to information. You already have the most efficient facilitator group (and you can actually know what they are doing) with these guys. So at the end of say 2 years you could minimize your direct marketing and advertising and limit sales to solely tactical usage (say whatever you need to do to support a specific trade show/event or any investor relations needs and specific meetings).
- Organization efficiency. One of the biggest struggles in organizational alignment (therefore costing efficiency) is the relationship, or the lack thereof, between sales and marketing. it just is not possible for every sales and marketing effort to be combined and in larger companies they call for regular meetings at higher level between sales and marketing heads where plans can be mapped out and then discarded as each function tries to meet their specific P&L goals.
TelAffects is a possible solution to the lack of camaraderie and spirit of ‘in it togetherness’ between the sales and marketing departments. They can facilitate the dialogue and interaction (if not eliminate most of sales vs. marketing at some point) and, at minimum, minimize internal competition.
So. One last thought. You have it in your head as you have read this. Telemarketing. (ouch. Hurts to even type it). yeah. Well. Overcome this thought lingering in the back of your head and give ‘em a call:
“Your one time experience 8 years ago with a telemarketing company is not meaningful.”
I think their biggest issue won’t be their business model but rather that people will want to throw them into the telemarketing garbage disposal. But they are different. Certainly worth a look if you are in the b2b business and want to increases sales (at minimum).
In the end I would guess their best fits are:
Financial organizations.
Business services organizations.
Technology support organizations.
But. I seriously cannot think of a b2b business they wouldn’t be good for. It’s a neat business idea.
