Posts tagged energy
hope & marketing (part 2)
Aug 22nd
Ok. I had so much to write about in “hope, low process and selling” that I took this part and thinking and put it in its own lil post.
Here we go.
Fact.
Communicating choices with the intent to persuade someone to “choose me” is an inexact science.
In fact.
It is not a science at all (despite what ROI driven purchasing people suggest and desire).
Yes.
There is a discipline to crafting communications (c’mon … given the amount of time people have done things there is certainly a list of ‘trial & error’ learnings to use as benchmarks).
But.
Advertising iconic hero Bill Bernbach said: “I warn you against believing that advertising is a science. Artistry is what counts. The business is filled with great technicians, and unfortunately they talk the best game … but there’s one little problem. Advertising happens to be an art, not a science.”
And this dude, and his agency DDB, created some good shit (and still does).
So.
So, because being in the choice communication business (and selling hope) isn’t a science, the truth is (another fact) the more research conducted to “strengthen” choice communications (i.e., marketing & advertising) the more functional the communication has to be judged on … because that is the only thing research can quantitatively measure.
Emotion, or something you just feel in your gut, cannot be measured.
(note: there are some wacky research tools out there that attempt to do so but regardless of their best efforts no one I know can use ‘brain wave’ or ‘twitch muscle’ research to truly tell you what your gut tells you)
And (as noted in the previous ‘hope’ post) functional doesn’t win in the long run. Emotion or some higher order value wins.
Bottom line?
Two things lead to mediocrity and conformity in communications: research and rational benefits.
Interestingly this thought goes way beyond communications and advertising. It runs true in just about any transaction-based relationship (i.e., shopping).
Another fact.
Shopping isn’t simply a transaction. Shopping is an experience.
And I don’t necessarily mean experience in the “walking around and looking and touching” perspective. One expert said it best:
“We dream of shopping for beauty, truth and perfection, and if we do not shop for a perfect society, at least we shop for a perfect self.”
Yes. Correct. And, yes, again.
We shop and we make choices as an extension of ourselves – of who we are and what we want to be. That, at its most psychological Maslow-like level, is the pursuit for a perfect self.
Sound like a bunch of mumbo jumbo? Maybe sounds like it but it ain’t.
We talk transactions but we behave emotionally.
(how often has your head say “he is all wrong for me” and then you go ahead and let your heart tell you what to do?)
Anyway.
The same expert also suggested that she believes “the noblest aspect of shopping is finding a community, a discovery that usually happens at a place like a farmer’s market or a neighborhood store, where interaction among customers is fostered. Rallying for these public spaces rather than buying things, she argues, should be what we use shopping to achieve.”
Poetic words.
Maybe even sounds a little too lofty.
But its not. Because if you ignore the thought behind the words you simply fall back into the functional/rational zone of sameness (and then, I guess, it does become a science).
If it helps … simplistically she is suggesting creating spaces so that “birds of a feather can flock together” and be happy amongst others.
So why is all this important?
Well. If I want someone to ‘choose me’ I have to understand the challenges.
Understanding motivation for behavior is one thing (and a very very important thing).
Understanding HOW to communicate is another.
Bill Bernbach again: “Eighty-five percent of all ads don’t even get looked at. Think of it! You and I are the most extravagant people in the world. Who else is spending billions of dollars and getting absolutely nothing in return? We were worried about whether or not the American public loves us. They don’t even hate us. They just ignore us.”
So even if I am in the ‘selling hope’ business I have to deliver the message in a memorable, interesting and artful way if I want whatever I am marketing to be chosen.
Notice I used art in there.
Because, once again, it is not a science.
I cannot simply say “hey, look over here, I am selling some hope-on-a-rope.”
I gotta be creative and offer up some communication that stirs someone emotionally and lets them arrive at the benefit all by themselves. That is a powerful communications when that happens.
And there absolutely can be some discipline in the approach but the ultimate output is art.
A maddening art. I often call it the “glorious mistakes when we blunder into an incredible way to say what we want to say.”
Why a ‘glorious mistake’?
Well.
Often the most insightful communication is partly flawed. Likeable. Believable.
And I ended on believable because while communications is art … truth is just that – truth. No grey. Just truth. And that is ultimately what makes things believable.
Bob Levenson (hired by Bill Bernbach) may have said it best when he responded to a Time magazine contest in the 1960′s. Ad agencies were invited to create an advertisement in the public interest. He wrote a manifesto for the ad industry (see below). It conveys the honesty that the advertising/marketing profession is founded upon. And still should uphold as the beacon for everything every marketer (at any level) should do in the communications business.
Bottom line?
Share truth.
Sell hope.
And enjoy, share, and DO THIS OR DIE.
ideas and finding them
Apr 14th
Ok. This is about ideas.
Not my ideas or even my thinking.
This is about other people’s ideas. And the fun associated with rolling around in not only “what could be” but what some people are actually doing and trying.
Hey. We all have ideas.
But I have to tell you that it is a lot more fun exploring other people’s ideas … and ideas as they spring up anywhere globally at any time. Before the internet we often had to wait for some of the big research companies to issue these reports on what they believed were the best of the best ideas. Today? You can track ideas daily. Globally. And assess the best of the best as they happen. As with anything on the web tracking can be overwhelming. So my following tip is a way of watching what is happening globally with little work on your own end (because they do all the work for you).
Springwise (http://www.springwise.com) is where you can find a wide variety of new business ideas (new ideas … not new business ideas) which are a smaller selection of ideas pulled from Springspotter Network (http://www.springspotters.com).
It is a great site for ideas where new topics are posted daily and are searchable by category:
• Automotive (http://www.springwise.com/automotive)
• Eco & Sustainability (http://www.springwise.com/eco_sustainability)
• Education (http://www.springwise.com/education)
• Entertainment (http://www.springwise.com/entertainment)
• Fashion & Beauty (http://www.springwise.com/fashion_beauty)
• Financial Services (http://www.springwise.com/financial_services)
• Food & Beverage (http://www.springwise.com/food_beverage)
• Gaming (http://www.springwise.com/gaming)
• Government (http://www.springwise.com/government)
• Homes & Housing (http://www.springwise.com/homes_housing)
• Life Hacks (http://www.springwise.com/life_hacks)
• Lifestyle & Leisure (http://www.springwise.com/lifestyle_leisure)
• Marketing & Advertising (http://www.springwise.com/marketing_advertising)
• Media & Publishing (http://www.springwise.com/media_publishing)
• Non-profit, Social cause (http://www.springwise.com/nonprofit_social_cause)
• Retail (http://www.springwise.com/retail)
• Style & Design (http://www.springwise.com/style_design)
• Telecom & Mobile (http://www.springwise.com/telecom_mobile)
• Transportation (http://www.springwise.com/transportation)
I firmly believe you can never have enough ideas. And springwise is an awesome place to see the newest (and sometimes oddest) ideas from around the world.
Enjoy.
penalty of leadership
Mar 7th
“Penalty of leadership: Leaders have to act differently than the others.” – Unknown
I love this quote.
Supposedly it was first used in a Cadillac ad “The Penalty of Leadership” written by Theodore MacManus.
While it was a great advertisement (which outlines the challenges of being a leader) the line itself is awesome.
It is a great reminder for everyone in business.
And one I wish more business leaders and businesses would pay attention to.
Mostly because I find it nuts that leaders (I am referring mostly to businesses) forget they are the leaders when they actually attain leadership status. They seem to always stop in their tracks worrying about ‘the other guys’ (who quickly start pecking away at their business while the leaders are stopped in their worry).
They seem to forget that they didn’t really worry about the other guys as they worked their way to the top (they mostly worried about themselves and simply doing ‘the right thing’).
So.
The penalty of leadership is to ignore (that is a generalization but you get my point) everyone else and just figure out what the right thing to do is. And do what is right for you.
Oh. And constantly change itself.
And by all that changing … you stay ahead. You, well, lead.
Yet. Time after time I have seen business after business “come back to the market” in their actions out of fear of doing something different (“hey, let’s stick with what got us here” attitude). Oh. And “coming back” means only one of two things … going backwards or being stagnant. In either case, as others jockey for position (and trying to steal the leader’s share), the leader pays the ultimate penalty … they are no longer leading.
Sure. Sometimes the fear is under the guise of “staying true to what made my customers join my family” (and the fear of losing them) and sometimes the fear is simple fear of change.
Anyway.
I imagine the last point to make here is … to become a leader you have to move to the front of the pack. And once there you have to understand that ‘worry creates stagnancy’.
And stagnancy means everyone else catches up.
Remember. The penalty of leadership is to be different.
So quit worrying and go back to leading and acting like a leader.
Be different. Shake things up on occasion.
Hey. I know this isn’t easy (I am just bitching about the fact it seems like too many people/leaders are running scared). being a leader means that no one has shown the way. You aren’t following some path. There is some faith involved that the path you have chosen will lead where you want it to go. And all of those things are hard. Really hard.
But. You have to remember the penalty of leadership (acting differently) is actually also your reward.
It actually makes you impossible to follow let alone be passed.
Oh. By the way. If you aren’t passed it means you remain the leader.
I guess all this said suggests that the true penalty of leadership is you never get to relax.
Aw. What the heck. If you are leading who wants to relax anyway?
Great leaders never lose the nose for leading.
The penalty to many of us in the business world? There are not many great leaders in today’s business world. So if you find one reward yourself and stick as close to them for as long as possible.
shopping behavior and what comes after the recession: part 1
Jan 23rd
(some research company): “75% of shoppers have changed purchase behavior over past year. 
Wow.
It’s a number like that which creates an onslaught of people suggesting the recession has changed how people will behave after the recession passes (“the new economic world’ some people call it).
It’s a number like that which makes people write things like “permanent changes in consumer behavior.”
Well.
It seems that researchers like Booz and Pew have found it easy to forget that what people say now and what people do in the future are two different things (although Pew Research has been quick to suggest it is difficult to assess future behavior change and Booz qualifies their point of view with a variety of “may”s and “possible”s).
Now people say:
“26 % of consumers say they will plan to continue their changed behavior”
“40% say they will continue with some changes”
Does this mean permanent changed behavior? Nope. No way. Certainly not to the level of the %’s above.
Some? Sure. But generational buying/spending behavior is a huge mega tanker of attitudes/behaviors and turning it or stopping it takes lots of time and effort.
But let’s tackle this first by taking on behavior on an individual level.
In general any behavior change is difficult for a person. And that is even when they actually want to change behavior (of which living through a recession is not one of those ‘choice’ situations).
It takes real emotional energy to change the behavior patterns of people.
It is a fact that emotion is the energy required to true learning (which affects behavior).
Henri Laborit scientifically proved in his studies on human behavior in the 1960’s that there was a clear communication between learning and emotion. His research reflected without emotion learning was truly impossible. The combination of experience and its accompanying emotion (or reversed – emotional inspiration and accompanying experience) creates an imprint in an individual which becomes the foundation for ongoing behavior. This imprint influences us on an unconscious level from which ongoing behavior is established (the behavior is driven through subconscious rather than driven by conscious actions).
Lucas Donat, owner of a Direct Marketing agency, calls it Advertising 101: “hook consumers emotionally and then give them a reason to validate their reason to purchase”.
Emotion first. Intellect second.
Clotaire Rappaille, author of The Culture Code, says it the simplest: “Emotion is the energy required to learn anything.”
So.
Creating emotion can happen in any number of ways. But creating enough emotion to actually change personal behavior is very difficult. Why? Because the true inspiration to act is rarely self motivated. What people say and what people do are two extremely different things. For example, almost 70% of people say recycling is important but less than 30% of people actually recycle (Iconoculture 2007). An even more demonstrative example was noted by the Global Medical Forum in 2005, “if you look at people 2 years post coronary-artery bypass grafting, 90% have not changed their lifestyle.” (insert “wow” here). Even though they know they have a bad disease and they know they should change their behavior, for whatever reason, they don’t. Intellectually they know the right answer. But they didn’t change.
And I won’t even begin quoting smokers numbers (which reflects an astronomically high number responding they know it is bad for them but are confident the badness doesn’t refer to themselves … “that won’t happen to me”).
This proves not only does there have to be an intellectual trigger to act but a significant amount of emotion needs to be attached to the stimulus-to-act to generate real changes in behavior – established behavior really can only be changed by some emotionally charged action.
Next. Pain as a motivator to change. The reality is that a recession is kind of like a “pain” behavioral change mechanism. And test after test and program after program has proven pain (as well as rewards which is simply buying a behavior moment) to be ineffective in changing long term behavior (i.e., once pain is removed people will seek to return to previous behavior).
The impact of this recession on ongoing behavior will ultimately dictated by depth & breadth:
1. How long the pain lasts
2. How long the fear of the pain returning lasts
(and those two are obviously related)
But.
Regardless of the depth and length of the recession, once the ‘pain’ is removed and ‘fear of return’ subsides as the recession fades most people with established behavior patterns will seek to replicate as many of them as possible once they are able to.
Sure.
Some behavior will be altered but that is simply a reflection of the fact the pain (the recession) forced someone to try something new. Something maybe they had never tried before. And they actually ‘liked’ the experience as much as what they had done before so they are willing to replace an old comfortable behavior with a new comfortable behavior (I believe Booz Allen said “modified brand and outlet choices are entirely satisfactory to them” as a way of stating this idea).
So why am I so confident about this (beyond the behavioral data)?
Well. The difficulty things like price products and brands associated with “cheap” will run into is what good ole Maslow pointed out years ago – self esteem or status drives ultimately drive behavior.
Brands reflect status. And self esteem.
Yes. Dollar Stores (as well as coupon redemption) have attained a “smart status” in a recession. And to even a higher income group to show they are as smart as everyone else and they are tightening their belts.
But once the heavy recession fades most people will seek smart status in brands more comfortable to their everyday lives (and places like Dollar stores and much of the private label sales increases we have seen will slip slowly into irrelevance in most people’s lives – not all … just much of it).
Further proof?
Everyone should note the information P&G just released (10/28/10) that the sales of their everyday household brands are picking up again as the recession eases slightly. This is an important household buying behavior sign that the everyday shopper is seeking to revert back to the comfortable brand buying behavior as soon as they can.
Further proof?
Last week the car industry issued a report that “sales are increasing showing promise the recession is receding.” And where are the highest sales? SUVs for gods sake. Large cars. Not small gas efficient models. People are looking to revert back to “bigger is better” and “brands are good” as soon as possible. That is the tidal wave of consumer buying behavior that is being held back by the recession. Shopper behavior is waiting to step back (mostly) into its old comfortable behavior patterns.
Ok.
My last point (and frustration) when I read things on this topic is how most people (and research companies) ignore generational shopping behavior pattern learnings from the past.
Reminder.
America went through a depression in the 1930’s (and I could argue two significant recession spikes in the 70’s and 80’s).
We have a depression baby generation still alive and we can see how they act. And we can see how ensuing generations act (which basically ignored depression learnings unless they have had some emotional energy attachment).
Yes. Living through a depression or deep recession will absolutely affect the way consumers will think. But it will progressively affect the way each generation behaves based on the depth of their existing patterns of behavior (older more established versus younger less established).
Think upon this (comparing the 1930’s depression time to 2010 recession period). Oh. I do have a nifty credible source that supports my generational behavior point of view I just don’t have it with me as I type this. So. Here goes:
- the Silent generation (our current grandparents) were depression youth. They had ‘unfulfilling’ coming of age impacting their behavior as elders. Think of them as the very young ‘post millennial generation and youngest Millenials. They are frugal to an extreme.
- the optimistic GI generation adults were young adults in the depression who fought a war and fought the depression (and were victorious there also). This is the generation that created the generations of affluence and optimism that led us into the economic heights we experienced (think JFK as key personality). They were savers but “spending builders.”
- the Lost generation, who fought WW1, and were the flappers generation which led into the free spending before the depression. It is their optimism and buying behavior which returned to levels of excess after the depression ended.
- All led by the optimistic elder Missionary “can do” generation (think FDR) during this period.
It is quite a similar to our current situation where something bad/tough ecomomywise happened in an overall optimistic set of generations. And when we look at their behavior patterns as they came out of the depression you see that each generation reverted back to a version of their buying attitude they had prior to the depression (optimistic spending as a general rule).
Why would we believe this current set of generations would act differently?
So.
All the mumbo jumbo out of the way here is how it is going to work out:
- Silent generation (depending on your age they are our elder parents or grandparents … they are depression youth). They have just relived a version of their painful youth and have revisited youth leanings. Any loosening of their shopping behavior over the years will tighten up again as we come out of the recession.
- Boomers. They will be the ones who will most quickly revert back to shopping behavior because they embody the American culture code of “bigger is better” and “quality brands are good” mentality. They also believe that they are entitled to owning what they want and spending how they want. This generation built the booming american can-do economy (in their eyes).
- genXers. Indulgent and ADD in their youth even in their maturity they will seek to get back to their indulgement & savings swings they are known for. The pain of not having money will always be in the back of their minds but they will seek opportunities (and justify them) to spend, spend, and … well … spend some more.
- Older Millennials. This is the tricky group from a shopping behavior standpoint. Let’s say that this group will revert to a “selective instant gratification” shopping behavior. And by selective I mean they may be slow to gain momentum on “more is better” traditional American shopping behavior. Young adults don’t have money anyway so the recession simply deepened a traditional growing up ‘angst’ but hasn’t affected established buying behavior (because they didn’t have enough money to establish a shopping behavior in the first place). But. Typical of this age group as they gain money they will seek to “trade up” as soon as possible.
- Young post-Millennials (global generation) and Millenials will grow up as “recession babies” (in a generational cycle they will start exhibiting silent generation behaviors as they grow up) and exhibit more frugal and savings oriented buying behavior. This is truly the group of potential shoppers who received the “emotional imprint” noted earlier. They have seen and encountered the emotional angst of their parents (and the emotion is embedded because they are not fully in control of their lives as children … similar to the silent ‘depression baby generation).
My conclusion?
Phooey on the idea of sweeping permanent shopper behavior changes. (I just wanted to type phooey)
And shame on the large research companies jumping on the recession bandwagon and ignoring past behavioral learnings.
distinctive creative innovation messaging
Oct 8th
Well.
Intel continues to be the prime poster child for how to market and position a product that …. well … is dependent on another product to even have an existence.
Some people would call it branding.
Let’s just call it creating a positive meaningful imprint in people’s minds enough that people care whether they have it or not (despite the fact 99% of the non-nerd population has no clue what it actually does .. but has to have it).
The television stuff they have been doing lately is awesome.
All of it.
Let me begin with the one they call “generations.” Two guys over decades of time growing up together discussing technology innovations in a way only geeks could (but we get it). c’mon. Whoever wrote “they call it ‘E’ … lectronic mail” isn’t getting paid enough. It’s awesome. Here is the TV commercial: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSqMTWrlF-8
What makes this brilliant is that they want to tell you how Intel has been at the forefront of technology innovations over time … and the reality is most of us could give a rat’s ass about what you have done in the past only what you do in the future for us (but marketers get sucked into “we need to become more credible in people’ minds so let’s tell them all the good shit we have done in the past” … whatever …).
But you know what?
I cared after this commercial.
Because I laughed.
Because I stepped back a little in time through the eyes of Intel and I appreciated it.
Ok.
And then.
At the exact same time they are running a commercial that has nothing to do with the past but it’s all about young nerds working in the lab and the future.
And it is brilliant also.
Innovations are so inbred into culture they don’t even notice them (so the implication is that they just aren’t that big a deal to Intel …. They just happen because they are supposed to).
This is what they call “Intel media lab” or “hey Walter”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30dnLv5VclI&feature=channel
Awesome.
They just told us they were innovators unimpressed by their own innovations.
Good stuff.
Finally.
An ability to laugh at themselves (but people benefit from the joke).
The challenge (I am guessing simply because I know how business owners think and the crap they make agencies figure out how to solve):
“How do I tell everyone I am smarter than they are and have an incredible attention to detail and am different in a way that makes me think I won’t get screwed buying their product and they aren’t just pounding their chests on how brilliant they are?”
Well. Let’s maybe share a laugh.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0FULHGwPkw&feature=channel
Awesome stuff again.
Even us non-geeks shake our heads and laugh and yet have a twinge of respect.
Ok.
About the only thing I dislike (and this is kind of nitpicky) is how they end all their ads with the infamous Intel sound mnemonic but instead they have people (I assume their employees) singing the little note signoff.
Yeah yeah yeah.
I get that they want everyone to know that Intel isn’t just a ‘chip’ but people.
Let’s call this the infamous “humanizing a technological innovation.”
Well. It’s kind of silly and unnecessary. The chip is king. I know. Its nitpicky. But it seems like one of those things that some client said and thought about and put their foot down and said “show people! … we aren’t just a bunch of robots making stuff up but we are a likeable group of people (albeit nerds).”
Sure.
So end the commercials with people making noises. That will do it.
Regardless.
A lot of business people and advertising people and marketers who take themselves too seriously oughta be checking out Intel. They get it.
And they are doing a whizbang job in my book.
original ideas
Aug 26th
Ok. The whole concept of “original” idea seems to bring out the worst in people.
And maybe because I get to teach and talk with high school kids on occasion (and, boy, do they have ideas … lots and lots and lots of ideas … all original) I get to talk about the “truth” about original ideas.
For example.
I get to say.
There are no original ideas.
Okay.
That was black & white.
Let’s say they are truly truly rare.
Look. I have been lucky (in the whole ‘seeing awesome ideas’ category).
I have seen some of the world’s best innovations groups.
I have seen some of the most successful entrepreneurial business people in the world present their ideas.
I have seen some of the most creative people in the world show ideas.
And?
I think I can count on one hand truly original ideas.
Okay.
Derivatives and nuances? Sure.
Original? One hand.
So.
Let’s break original ideas down into two aspects.
1. The thought. 2. The implementation.
The thought is a “what if” or “could this be” type scenario.
Forget it.
Here is the truth.
Someone somewhere has had the same thought.
Some people have figured out a way to share it.
And if those some people have figured out a way of articulating it well (or well enough that people understand it).
Oh.
By the way. All these are diminishing numbers.
Ok.
And then there are the ones who articulate it well enough to be understood and have an audience who (a) gives a shit and (b) wants to do something with it.
By this time you can be found somewhere dancing on the head of pin with the few others who fit there with you.
And.
“Wants to do something with it.”
Yup.
(b) is important because truly original ideas scare the crap out of most people.
“Don’t worry about people stealing an idea. If it’s original, you will have to ram it down their throats.”
- Howard Aiken
Now that quote is dead on right.
Go ahead and visit most management teams and talk about scared.
Now you run into the infamous “what people say versus what people do.”
What do I mean?
People say: “show me ideas that scare me.” And then “if it scares us it must be a good idea.”
And then.
People do: <nothing>
They may say … “they (it’s never ‘me’ it is always ‘they’) were too scared to do it. They just didn’t see the risk return on it.”
Well.
I will make one point here and then move on …
ORIGINAL MEANS IT HASN’T BEEN SEEN OR DONE BEFORE SO HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT WILL HAPPEN!!!!
(yes. I shouted that AND used exclamation points)
Anyway.
Maybe because it is new (and therefore untried or unseen) people get nervous.
Anyway.
Original ideas are every rare.
Okay.
Moving on to the protecting the relatively rare original ideas.
(which is where I really started when thinking about writing this)
People spend lots (and lots and lots and … well … you get the point) of time worrying about protecting proprietary ideas and proprietary process and ‘original ideas.’
(even if they don’t have one they invest lots of energy discussing and worrying about them)
Okay. Look.
If I am a drug company, maybe a software company or technology company with some engineering widgetology or maybe P&G which has some skin lotion formulation that some whiz bang ingredient then, yeah, you get protective.
Oh. Just for humor at the end of this post I have included a “proposed confidentiality process” we sent to a maniacally protective prospective client (yes. We did send an actual one but they were fun people as well as maniacal and wanted to have a little laugh over their obsessive behavior with regard to confidentiality)
Anyway.
But.
For some reason it seem my last several jobs I have encountered company owners who were obsessed with ‘protecting our original ideas.’ I kept on trying to point out to them that unless you’re a new products innovation group (and we were marketing and strategy driven companies) the odds of you truly having an original idea is lower than USA winning the World Cup.
I sometimes believe people spend so much time thinking they have an original idea and investing so much energy trying to keep it a secret they forget the energy it takes to actually get it to happen.
In fact.
To be honest.
I believe I have been in several situations where we actually had a fairly original idea however in presenting the idea I probably went overboard trying to draw links to things people have done in non related industries. It’s a little crazy but original ideas have an easier time being implemented if it feels ‘fresh’ to the industry it is going to happen in but ‘used’ by someone else first.
So you end up making original ideas look ‘not so original’ so that they can be implemented.
Crazy.
In the end.
I would worry less about whether it is “original” or not. I would worry more about whether it was a good idea.
And idea that will work.
In fact … it is true (take this one to the bank) if you stop thinking ‘original’ and start looking for “similar to” it becomes easier to implement and easier to sell (or have someone implement).
Sound wacky? Yup. But it’s true.
Just face it.
Originality (as with many things in life) is a shade of grey.
Or maybe an aspect of something that already exists.
Just worry about his:
“Until you can create something that captivates people, I’d invite you to just shut up. It’s easy to attack and destroy an act of creation. It’s a lot more difficult to perform one.” Chuck Palahniuk
Worry less about original.
Worry more about the idea.
And worry more about making it actually happen versus protecting it.
So. That said.
Here are some thoughts if you want to protect your “original” ideas:
(yes. We really shared this with a client.)
< maniacal company>: Additional Confidentiality Steps
- Cyanide pills
The pills are embedded in team member teeth caps with a tracking chip set to identify and explode upon the presence of a <competitive company> employee.
(note: this is covered in our dental plan)
- Enigma coding machines
We have identified the two last working Enigma coding machines. We can place one in your offices and the other will remain in <the managing director’s> office (which is better than card protected room because his executive assistant is better than a pit bull protecting that office).
- Etch-a-Sketch communications
All communications will take place via etch-a-sketch. Twice a day all team members will shake their etch-a-sketch.
- Invisible Ink
All written communications will be conducted in invisible ink. (but still under lock and key guidelines).
- Fort Knox
Quick research has uncovered that the majority of the gold has been removed from Fort Knox and space is available. We may have to tweak the compensation agreement, but we would be willing to consider setting up a field office in the Fort Knox vault to service your business.
- Cosa Nostra
Through some relationships <our managing director> has we may be able to make some arrangements to completely eliminate the <competitive company’s> conflict once and for all (if you know what we mean). Once again, we may have to tweak the compensation arrangement to accommodate this service.
These are just some initial ideas which we would be willing to discuss in the interest of collaboration.
innovations, collaboration and discovery
Aug 12th
So. There was a fascinating article in a late 2009 Science Magazine (“innovation is more critical than ever”).
Oh.
No. I don’t make it a habit to read Science magazine. So don’t anyone worry I have completely lost it.
But.
I came across this article about maintaining innovations through collaboration and partnerships in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries (and having seen the P&G Innovations group in action I am always interested in innovations process and thinking).
I thought it was a nice article talking about collaboration in a highly intelligent employee based organization (I will get back to that).
Next.
There was a small article in the Economist 8/7 issue on innovation prizes.
Now. I am not a cash reward believer (tends to not create ongoing ideation as well as discourages emotional based behavior patterns) but in this case the Economist showcased a couple of thoughts that I believe are perfect with regard to the proper use of collaboration (and dollar reward mechanism).
The concept is outsourcing collaborative ideation opening up competition to non-industry knowledgeable individuals (I will get back to that).
Next (and lastly so I can get to the point of this post).
A book called “The Rational Optimist: How Prosperity Evolves.”
Now. I am not recommending this book. It is not for the faint of heart and it makes a Michener book read like People magazine. But. It does a nice job of addressing how innovations (lets call them biological, cultural & economic forces) can be aligned to enhance overall human progress.
Ok.
The bottom line is that innovations are the lifeblood of not only corporate success (or let’s say business/industry success) but also human success. Not just ‘comfort’ innovations but dwarf grain, penicillin, combustible engine type innovations.
Stuff that enhances true progress.
That is what innovation is all about.
Okay.
Let’s talk about innovation and collaboration (with the intent of discovery).
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm … why did I add that last part?
Well. Collaboration when used improperly impedes discovery, it doesn’t enable discovery.
I have already written about this but I would suggest most companies today misuse collaboration to the extent that it wastes employee energy and resources and actually negatively affects morale (so basically they are killing their organizations thru an idea with the best intentions … yikes.).
Anyway.
Genentech.
Suffice it to say smart (if not frickin’ brilliant) employee base almost top to bottom.
Oh. And their top to bottom is pretty shallow in that they have a flat organization (makes sense … why do you need a huge hierarchy with brilliant people running around?).
Oops. Ok. And before any businesses owner starts looking at this and thinks “that’s it. Flatten the organization!” (gosh. When I typed that I thought of the old Thomas Dolby ‘she blinded me with science’ video … “Science!” … anyway) they need to understand Genentech is not, say, a Cisco or even a P&G. Those organizations thrive on multi levels (multiple levels of expertise and brain power working together … think of it as drones & stars).
Genentech does not and would not thrive in a hierarchal structure (they don’t have many drones). Plus. The majority are entrepreneurial ideators themselves as thinkers.
So. What does a brilliant employee base organization do to collaborate and come up with innovations? Well. They don’t put a group of these Einstein like people in a small padded brain storming room and have them play ideation games.
They go outside the organization and collaborate with partners or maybe even access collaboration opportunities through mergers or acquisitions.
In my words … they seek to not put two magnets side by side but rather take a magnet and start throwing some different outside objects at it to see what sticks.
To make another point. While the word “collaboration” is being used, at its core, ideas is an “individual” thing (meaning individuals tend to come up with innovative ideas all by their lonesome) and biotech companies empower individuals to ideate (simply create as much stimulus as possible through collaborative efforts so that the individual can ideate).
Oh.
And while I am not describing a creative (or advertising agency) the realities in these environments is exactly the same. Empower individuals to ideate. Multiple minds soften the sharp edges of an innovation.
Okay.
Moving on.
The innovation “prize” idea.
Let me start with the end on this idea as described by The Economist. The 7 winners of this $1mlllion prize (to be awarded to someone who designed an algorithm system to enhance online recommendations based on prior purchases) never met physically until they picked up the prize. They had collaborated online.
Let me repeat. They never met until they showed up to receive the prize.
So. Once again the collaboration was outside the “using” (or manufacturing/implementing) organization as well as it was a specific “here is the challenge” situation.
A one-off if I may use that term.
Now. I want to be careful here (as the Economist also cautioned). Innovations scenarios to me that work here are specific product enhancement innovations. Policy or “soft” innovations (if I may use that term) would seem to be a less attractive intent for this prize/reward system. This collaboration/prize concept is perfect for “solving oil spills” or “a car that gets 100mpg” or a “reusable space ship” or things that may seem slightly impossible and attract innovative thinkers outside the industry “box” who may approach the widget issue from a completely different point of view.
Lastly.
I threw in the book because it makes the point that innovations propel progress. Without innovations we (the people) kind of just chug along. Progressing but ambling down the progress road. Innovations (like some I have mentioned above) propel us forward. Like think leaps instead of steps. It would behoove us to have someone smarter than I and someone in a power position to be thinking about solving some of our progress issues (stumbling blocks) in this way.
Okay.
Hey. I know ongoing innovation is difficult. Mainly because great organizations exist on two levels. Continuity and discontinuity (and I believe people do also).
But only one is constant. Continuity. You need ongoing efficient coordinated alignment to bring all resources to bear in competitive environments. And yet you need steady (but interspersed) infusion of innovation (or discontinuity) to be successful.
One keeps you on the road. One keeps you from being stagnant.
Simply think OFF = ON. What do I mean?
When something previously deemed ‘emerging’ starts to invade the mainstream, or even better, is actually mimicked by it, new innovation opportunities abound. Case in point: the near-total triumph of the online revolution, which has the offline world more often than not playing second fiddle in everything from commerce to entertainment to politics.
So.
The idea of outsourcing collaboration is brilliant. Especially for one off specific challenges. And prizes insure innovative thinking toward solutions. And forward thinking innovative solutions propel progress.
(everyone should like that short paragraph)
One last point on innovations and collaboration (and why this outsourcing idea is a big idea).
Typically the most effective ideation focuses on the needs of “Lead End User” to Drive the innovation system at all phases of ideation. This principle is based on more than just the tired “the consumer is king” mantra. It is a ruthless pursuit of Lead End Users, the consumers or customers who have legitimate change-agent DNA working in every aspect of their lives. These change agents can truly help you morph and accelerate new ideas by maximizing lead end user input through early exposure to end benefit (or prototype) visual stimulus. This seeing-is-selling visual stimulus is empowering to change agents, who often solve their unmet needs by developing their own product or service solutions.
The problem? (two of them)
1. internal organization collaboration will kill Lead End User ideas. Kill them so dead they will never come back.The ideas seem so impossible that within a group of collaborators there will be enough “unimaginative” people to clearly define it as a waste of time (as impossible). Collaboration kills here.
2. The process discussed above is often challenging and even scary to a company, because lead end users rarely reflect the current masses’ desires. After all, lead end users are early adopters and reflect trendspotter characteristics. And, as with any trendspotter, the ideas uncovered can be unattractive at first glance because the market doesn’t yet exist. But that is the first step towards uncovering the big win new product innovation.
So. In the end real progress is maintained by innovative innovations (not all innovations are truly “spur on progress” innovative ideas.).
I do like the privatization of ideation (on some things). I caveat because (and it may sound like I am backpedaling) because I believe companies should be thoughtful and selective on any collaboration efforts. And then even more selective of what is solved in house versus the outhouse (ok, externally).
If managed correctly there are many ideas that can be generated internally within an organization. (Although not with a prize reward mechanism).
But.
Everyone should remember that great innovation progress is driven by (1) individuals with ideas and (2) reliance of outside resources to envision the impossible as possible.
Oh. And companies are not built for anything I have described in the immediate above as well as the process I described (or at least if they are they are the exception to the rule).
Why? Not only is it scary but the approach to capital budgeting and resource allocation at traditional companies is completely counter to nurturing and facilitating new ideas. Multiple levels of in-grown management seek to protect the existing business model and ‘stay the course.’ In addition, new ideas are often forced to be synergistic to the current business. Radical new ideas face a bureaucratic march of death up multiple organizational levels where a “no” at any point can kill the idea. The key financial goal of this death march is to minimize the number of projects falling below a minimally acceptable rate of return.
In contrast, a typical VC incubator system is focused on insuring the big winner. Resources are attracted to (not allocated against) the best ideas without any regard to protecting the status quo or forcing synergy.
Now that sounds a lot like what I have been writing about.
Outside collaboration.
Rewards to winning best ideas.
Set the specific challenges to have the “collaborative contests” over.
Start thinking this way and, by golly by gee, we are gonna have some progress my friends.
cloning self image
Jul 20th
“Why are you trying so hard to fit in, when you’re born to stand out.”
- oliver james
So. I love this quote from a variety of perspectives.
But. Today I am going to use it to discuss self esteem. Especially a woman’s self esteem (I have an entire post on this coming up on the heels of my Unhealthy Eating posts).
Anyway.
Self esteem. It comes from the inside out. In its truest sense that means a woman is not dependent upon anyone else to make her feel good about herself. She feels fine just the way she is aware of strengths and abilities and is comfortable unequivocally sharing them with others (or let’s say unequivocally enough that it doesn’t affect pursuing relationship or having positive relationships).
Sure.
She is also aware of areas needing work and flaws. But is comfortable knowing no one can be perfect. So there is a basic understanding, and inner belief, that we all have our strengths and weaknesses and she has the self esteem to be independent (not dependent).
All you have to do is work in marketing for even a short time and you realize that self esteem is a core identity issue (and Maslow has an entire hierarchical chart reflecting this which I have probably used a half dozen times in presentations).
Maslow notes self esteem is essential to personal validation and the ability to experience happiness. But. Self esteem resides within.
So. A healthy self esteem is important on a number of levels.
But here is the deal.
Self esteem is attacked or stunted from the outside.
So. A woman with low self esteem does not feel good about herself mainly because she has absorbed negative messages about women from one, or a combination, of these – society, what culture communicates around her, relationships (parents and/or companions).
Let me cut to the chase.
Society seems to doom every woman to eventual failure (unless she is made of Teflon or looks like Angeline Jolie).
Magazines, from teens on, pound away on one message – focus all efforts on appearance.
Oh. And not just “appearance” but rather “approved appearance.”
It seems many girls are encouraged by their tweens to stop enjoyable fun activities they may have enjoyed up to that point and focus their energy in pursuit of social acceptance (or they go the exact opposite direction seeking to file themselves under “outcast”).
And how crazy does it become? Well. They become rabbits eating leaves without salad dressing, jog in hurricanes, and dance like nuts to disco and sweat in designer outfits and swear they love every minute of it.
Oh. And TV. Never ending cosmetic surgery ads encouraging women to “repair” flaws in pursuit of appearance perfection (or the somewhat dubious “approved appearance”).
Yet despite all efforts women find it difficult to feel like they are good enough.
Geez. How can they? Magazine models are airbrushed to perfection as well as so thin I am not sure it is physically possible to have bones. All the beautiful movie stars are whipped into perfect shape by 8 hour workouts and personal trainers and surgery is used as if it’s like brushing teeth in the morning to create a fairly unattainable ideal.
Let me note right now. This women’s’ poor self esteem issue just steams me. I know all women do not have it but far far too many do.
And this is nuts. Absolutely nuts. And I am gonna swing into a guy’s perspective on this.
This is a huge generalization but the buck stops here. With guys (men).
Since when have men followed what society tells us to do? We need to find our inner rebel and take this on (either that or just get our heads out of our asses). It is kind of up to us to solve this issue. At least for the women around us that we actually care about.
Not magazines. Not TV.
Sure. They drive me nuts but, hey … I would start with American Idol or Bridezillas before I attacked women’s magazines and cosmetic ads.
Why us men?
- We are there and can make an impact.
- Because it matters.
This is not from me. This is from someone who has PhD’s out the wazzoo talking about self esteem:
“Because they don’t have the self-esteem to know that there is someone amazing out there for them.”
Or.
“They just don’t accept that someone really does not only accept them for who they are but could even possibly love them – as is.”
And they beat themselves up. And they compromise. And they find abusive companions. And they feed this self esteem machine running 24/7 inside of them and a lot of really smart, beautiful and amazing women get destroyed by this – and it is a slow destruction taking little bite after little bite from the inside out.
And I get steamed.
And the crazy thing? (and this is really crazy).
Society has us all so screwed up in our thinking that even the women who you wouldn’t even hesitate to put into the ‘beautiful’ category have self esteem issues.
See Audrey Hepburn quote:
Look. In my Unhealthy Eating diatribe I state my belief. Healthy comes in all shapes and sizes.
Well. Here’s is the corollary or postulate or frickin’ theorem if you want it – Beautiful comes in all shapes and sizes.
And I don’t want to hear this crap about “she has a great personality” or “beauty is within.”
Everyone has someone who finds them beautiful, as is, out there in this world.
If you haven’t found that person keep looking.
On that issue?
Do. Not. Compromise.
(deep breath here)
I would imagine I wrote this because I just finished my unhealthy eating posts and portions of this self esteem appearance issue keeps rattling around in discussions people are having over obesity versus unhealthy and eating.
And the discussions are taking place among women I value … respect … and frankly cannot understand how we (society) put them in a place where they would even question “oh, someone could never see me that way.”
Drives. Me. frickin’. Nuts.
So.
Bottom line. The quote.
The beautiful women I know are beautiful because they don’t fit into some magazine outlined appearance or whatever. They don’t meet the “approved appearance” criteria (but I also probably could count on one hand women who do).
They are beautiful because they are individuals. The package. The imperfections make them perfect. They should be encouraged to stand out not wear themselves out trying to fit in.
And, because I am a guy, I can say this.
I think more guys should step up to the plate and be more positive with women.
Especially if you care.
Nowhere in ‘caring’ do I see any derivative of “diminish.”
So guys if you want a clone, go get one. But for the women who want to stand out and maybe not fit exactly into society sameness standards please don’t try and make them into clones.
Let them find someone who loves them as is.
organizational alignment part 2
May 12th
“Full conformity is possible only in the cemetery.”
Stalin
I know this is an unusual quote to use especially when it comes to talking about business.
But when i talk about business I talk a lot about organizational alignment.
And I recognize that “getting people to do it the company way” is truly critical to success.
But. Here is the deal.
It is more important that an organization understand where the organization wants to go than it is for everyone to do exactly the same thing.
Sure. You want everyone to do some things all the same way.
But. Great organizations have some attributes of autonomy.
It’s kind of like managing a pendulum. A little controlled swing is good. If you keep everyone locked down on the important things (which probably aren’t actual “doing things” but rather attitudinal) then ultimately the pendulum gives everyone a little personal responsibility and leeway which makes the organization slightly more flexible in its approach to business (and customers). And, frankly, it helps create a more well rounded personality for the organization (or company or brand whatever you want to call it) in the marketplace. (I have a follow up post on the new decentralized management model on the horizon)
So. Organizational behavior control freaks beware. The only time you will get an organization to conform to everything is probably when the organization has one foot in the grave.
note: organizational alignment part 1 can be found in running a business part 2. whew. confusing.
big ideas, small (sharp) Ideas and no Ideas
Mar 18th
So.
Between Bob Hoffman at The Ad Contrarian, me and some boneheads in North Dakota (ok. they are in Portland) we have covered every aspect of all sizes of ideas:
http://adcontrarian.blogspot.com/2010/02/best-idea-is-no-idea.html
Here is my net.
Big ideas in marketing are crap.
Thinking you have a big idea is better than actually having no idea.
Confusing a bunch of tactics with a strategic idea is just plain stupid.
Iterative tactics without strategy idea is insane.
If you can get paid for having no ideas do anything to keep that job.
Small (sharp) ideas are uncool but exponentially cooler than no idea and better than supposed big ideas.
Hey look. I believe there are Big Ideas. I believe Einstein had one. Marconi. Maybe Edison. Surely Newton. But not all big ideas are good ideas.
“I think I am going to fly around the world.” (Amelia Earhart).
“I think I am going to kick Russia’s ass.” (Napoleon)
“I think the beta is the technology of the future.” (Sony)
“We don’t like their sound, and guitar music is on the way out.” (Decca Recording Co. rejecting the Beatles)
Anyway.
Ideas are good in any shape or size (no ideas have no shape therefore by this logic are not good).
I just tend to believe often big things come in very small packages when it comes to ideas. So if all you do is look for big packages you are gonna be sorely disappointed when you open it up and look at the idea.
But regardless this iterative process thing this company in the Arctic suggests which leads to ‘no ideas’ is really kind of nuts. Maybe (and this is quite possible) I am missing something but like adcontrarian what I seem to see is “hey, big ideas are crap so I am going to constantly implement a boatload of little tactics until some of them start working and then write up the idea.” Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm ….
Well. I have certainly seen a great tactical idea generate a honed strategic idea but I can honestly say I have never seen anyone just throw a whole bunch of tactical shit up against the wall and see what sticks and then like a Rorschach test identify the strategic idea from the shape of the tactical shit.
But, hey, if someone is buying it up in Portland so be it.
Regardless. It is kind of the way business in general seems to be evolving (to my dismay I may add).
I believe this iterative thing they describe is being driven by two things:
1. Consensus
A consensus means that everyone agrees to say collectively what no one believes individually.
(Abba Eban)
“If I have an idea I want to share ownership so it succeeds.” Or that is kind of the bullshit you hear. Look.
A good idea is a good idea. Gaining consensus will only dull a sharp idea. No debate. Figure out a way to implement without consensus. Not saying it’s easy but that’s kind of the gig.
2. Fear
To be fearless in a room full of fear is frustrating.
Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats. (Henry Louis Mencken)
Fear takes shape in organizations in a couple of ways:
a. Fear of being wrong or making a mistake.
This is a tough one. Nowadays with employment being what it is many people are running scared. And scared leadership is putting even more pressure on people to make fewer mistakes (rather than do more right things). This iterative process is a beautiful way to hide from making a mistake. How can you be wrong if it is baked into an admitted iterative process?
b. Use data to make a subjective decision.
Ah. This is where research comes in.
In other words “why use common sense and our knowledge when we can implement a congruent multi phase segmentation study that identifies the double helix DNA of our desired customer.”
I believe big research studies don’t produce big ideas. But. If you have patience and look hard enough typically within this big research study you can probably mine a little sharp looking diamond of an idea that can make a big difference. But most organizations don’t use research that way. They use research to make a decision for them. Use data out of fear.
I guess in the end I would suggest this Iterative process thing is kind of a marketing buzzword bullshit thing gone wrong.
But.
I still believe a process seeking Big Ideas is crap.
