Posts tagged fragmentation
that I have not been
Apr 25th
Posted by Bruce in Favorite Quotes
“’pray for nothing, say every night in bed, I have been a king, I have been a slave, nor is there anything, fool, rascal, knave, that I have not been, yet upon my breast a myriad of hearts have lain.” Mohini Chatterjee by Yeats
If I had not known that Yeats was enamored with mysticism and reincarnation I … well … would have ended up writing what I am going to write.
My first thought?
It has to do with living life however the cards are dealt … and regardless of whether you are a fool or an intellect … you will find someone ‘upon your breast will lay’ <that means you will have love & loves>.
I like that.
Doesn’t matter who you are and what you do … there will always be someone for you.
Oh.
And beyond having someone love you <assuming you allow it and you stop worrying about whether you are good enough> … there is a really big thought in there that there are lives within lives … and I imagine another way of saying that is … you can live several lives within one lifetime.
That’s what I think when I read this.
That’s a lot but I think it is a lot of good stuff.
Yeats wrote a lot about his belief that the soul of man is eternal. And that existence is cycles within cycles. I may not buy that whole “eternal” thing but I do believe that Life is cycles within cycles. It really only has one true beginning and end … but multiple starts and stops … and detours and exits … and … well … you get it. Cycles within cycles.
With that in mind I wanted to end this post with the conclusion of the poem used in the beginning … “men dance on deathless feet.”
Birth-hour and death-hour meet,
Or, as great sages say,
Men dance on deathless feet.
Now that is awesome.
You are either living or dying.
But your footsteps on Life will never die.
Oh.
One last thought <regarding this quote>.
If you truly believe that you live many lives within one life … well … then isn’t it worth setting aside desire and ambition as secondary to whatever type of life you want to lead?
Let me leave you with that thought.
turn your back on what you know
Apr 20th
Posted by Bruce in Business Thoughts
“To truly learn turn your back on what you know … leave it all behind.
To truly know the world you must immerse yourself in what is not your knowledge.” – Tibetan thought
Oh my.
Immerse yourself in what is not your knowledge.
That may be one of the most difficult things in the world to do.
It is natural to gravitate to what is most comfortable … that which you know and that which is the easiest for you to do.
I imagine many of us do this just as part of every day life and tell ourselves we are still learning as we bump into others who do something different and watch from afar.
But that is having one foot in what you know and maybe dipping a toe into what you don’t.
That isn’t truly ‘learning.’
At some point in order to truly learn you must … well … leave it all behind.
And that is difficult. Really difficult.
I know I cheat. How? I use young people. I try and place the situation in their hands, step back and listen. And I don’t judge <or eliminate possibilities>. It is my way of ‘immersing in what is not your knowledge.’ In their inexperience <within my own experience> they share a world of experiences in which I have no knowledge.
Oh.
I may think I do. But I don’t. It is a difficult thing for most of us to do … turn your back on what you know.
But I find it easier as long as I keep this other Tibetan thought in mind:
“Is being an investigator the opposite of being an artist? Maybe it is just that some mysteries require an artist not an investigator. That an artist has different ways to get to the truth.” – Tibetan thought
The path to truth is not just one path. Sure. I may know one ‘truth.’ But in knowing that I know … well … one thing. And I am sure many people are fine with the knowledge of one truth. And I do not begrudge them of that. For one truth is, at its core, a truth. And I believe everyone needs some truth in their life.
Does knowing more than one truth make someone better? Yikes. I don’t believe I could be a good judge of that. Because knowing multiple truths can be confusing … and in confusion someone just may not end up in a better place. I guess I would suggest that if multiple truths put you on more solid ground than go for it.
But the real point to this is that someone without YOUR knowledge is more likely to teach you something completely new than someone who shares your knowledge.
And, ultimately, if you are trying to understand the world, or simply solve a problem, to truly learn the answer … you may have to turn your back on everything you know.
judgment
Mar 28th
Posted by Bruce in Favorite Quotes
“Statistics are no substitute for judgment.” - Henry Clay
I was tempted to call this “when statistics get in the way of a good decision.”
Let me get this out of the way upfront. I like numbers. I have an Economics undergraduate and accounting accounted for several of my good grades in college. And I like that if you weave your way through numbers they can tell you things that can inspire the ‘real’ thought. And I like the fact that numbers can sway an “I think” based opinion to a “here is what I know” based opinion.
Anyway. I purposefully used Henry Clay (so think maybe 1800 as to date of the quote) so that some contemporary statistical gwonk doesn’t come out of the woodwork saying something along the lines of “statistics have only evolved in the last 20 years” or something crazy like that. “We have never had better data to make decisions from than today!” is a statement that was as true in 1800 as it is in 2012 and as it was in 100 BC.
This is an eternal issue.
People have looked at statistics since the time good ole Adam started calculating how many apples fell out of the tree to figure out how often he was gonna get laid.
Henry Clay just had the luck to be quoted on it.
So before I begin my rant let me say, yes, I get decision-making is a cognitive process … where the outcome is a choice between alternatives. And that numbers can play a role.
I also get that people have different preferences as to how to approach decision making and that there will always be a varying degree between thinking and feeling and numbers and experiential.
And I do believe all decisions, at least the worthwhile ones, have to incorporate some sense of logical decision-making. Logic in that we seek to exclude <or marginalize> emotions <as well as personal biases> and try to use only rational methods <perhaps even mathematical/statistical tools> with the intent to isolate what is typically called the decision utility.
I get all that.
Oh.
And by the way … I hope no one tries to dump the whole “left brain/right brain” mumbo jumbo on me because science has already proven that is an urban myth (yeah … I will write something on that). There is no right brain left brain.
There is no “numbers are facts” crap.
Yeah. On that last one ….
“Torture numbers, and they’ll confess to anything.” – Gregg Easterbrook
Numbers don’t lie.
But they also don’t tell you what to do. In saying that let me suggest why I believe this statistical ‘torturing numbers’ issue has been an issue for eternity.
The thought.
Many people who don’t want to make decision … okay … maybe they just get nervous with accountability … use statistics to make the decision … not inform a decision.
Why?
Well. There are boatloads of reasons but suffice it to say that without using numbers … you are getting paid (or at least judged) not just on decision-making skills but on your judgment skills. That means accountability is solely on you (the person).
Think about that. But also think about this (as you get judged). The following is an explanation on decision making using statistics:
Decision Making Under Uncertainty: Statistical Decision Theory
I’d like to start today’s lecture with a reminder about something I said a long time ago when we finished our survey of population viability analysis. Population viability analysis is best seen not as a way of garnering precise predictions about the fate of a population but as a way of ensuring that all relevant life-history variables have been considered, that they have been considered efficiently, and that we have a reasonable sense of the trajectory that the population is likely to follow if current trends continue. It provides a way of structuring our thinking about the problem. That’s precisely the way I think we should regard the approach to decision making that I’m about to describe. One of the most difficult tasks facing conservation biologists, as I have emphasized repeatedly, is that decisions must often, perhaps usually, be made in the face of woefully inadequate data.
(ba bla blaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa)
So.
From that incredibly dry mind numbing analysis of statistical decision theory they dropped this little bombshell in toward the end of the ‘how to use statistics’:
There is the recognition from statistics that there are two types of errors we can make in evaluating an hypothesis:
- We may say that something is happening when it isn’t (Type I), or
- We may say that something isn’t happening when it is (Type II).
Say what?
The capacity of the human mind for swallowing nonsense and spewing it forth in violent and repressive action has never yet been plumbed. – Robert Heinlein
(I wish I had written this in response to the statistical theory thingamajig)
Ok. What that means (to those of you solely dependent upon statistics). You may use the statistics to prove something is or isn’t happening … and it may not be happening or it is happening <anyone now wonder why statisticians are avoided?>.
Anyway. I will back off the ‘accountability through numbers folk’ for a second.
Trying to give statistical-using people the benefit of the doubt … let’s think that maybe when you are stressed out, frankly, any option seems pretty good … especially one which seems factual (numbers seem more factual to people … despite the fact that one you start combining them they become less factual).
I imagine it is like someone dying of thirst and drinking from whatever looks like the safest pool.
Uh oh. But some pools are poisoned.
And, unfortunately bout this stress theory of mine, when the adrenaline from the stress wears out, you realized that the statistics you leaned on for the decision YOU made were all bullshit (or someone points out they were bullshit when you actually invest some energy trying to explain them later).
And you are screwed.
Because of statistics (although people will inevitably try the “but the numbers told us what to do”).
Ok.
Here is the good news (relatively speaking). You can do something about the stress decision making leaning on numbers thing.
Most people, given enough experience, become aware that stress can do a number on your decision-making skills. How do I know? Well. Of course someone has done a study on it.
Scientists have some statistical based thinking about exactly how stress screws up your ability to make decisions.
According to ScienceDaily, psychologists Mara Mather and Nichole R. Lighthall (who completed a review of the literature on stress and decisions) they found that, even though you’d think being stressed would turn people into pessimists and therefore more careful … stress actually makes us focus too much on the upside of our decisions.
Says Mather, “Stress seems to help people learn from positive feedback and impairs their learning from negative feedback.”
Uh oh.
That sucks (maybe you cannot do something about the bad stress decision making thing). Nuts.
I guess my point in bringing up the study is that maybe under stress it is easier to grab on to statistics to make a decision <all the while thinking positive thoughts> and therefore avoided the judgment call on your own.
Uh oh (again).
Look.
I was wrong. You can do something about this judgment thing.
Judgment isn’t easy … but at some point you are accountable … or you should be … and hiding behind statistics just won’t hack it.
As Yoda would say “the answers are within you.”
The key to making a smart decision is giving yourself the time to gather all the information you need <and, yes, that can include statistics> and move forward with whatever proactive thinking method approach you have some confidence in … and make a decision.
A daunting decision doesn’t have to put you in an analysis paralysis death grip.
Use a logical decision-making method to help you evaluate your choices and pull the trigger.
And make a decision.
And not let statistics make the decision for you.
Here is the net on statistics: It helps us formalize and categorize our thinking to make sure that we have considered all relevant possibilities.
Quantitative analysis should be viewed as explorations of possibilities … not hard predictions.
I believe being able to use numbers, and statistics, to explore possibilities is truly a skill <or an art>.
Not everyone can do it. Ok. Well. That’s not true. Anyone can do it … it’s just that not everyone can do it well.
Knowing what to do with the numbers is an art.
In fact, just to circle back to the main topic of this post, let’s call it … well … judgment.
Yeah. Judging numbers. Weighing the importance of one number versus another as well as learning which numbers are unimportant.
And there are even fewer people who have mastered that art.
But. That doesn’t mean everyone should get bogged down in statistics and numbers because if you do, yup, you can torture any decision you want out of numbers.
And, frankly, you are lying to yourself if you believe that is a decision. That is simply being a coward (in the decision making world).
You have deferred decision to ‘numbers.’ And inevitably you are deferring accountability.
Sound harsh?
As harsh as this?
“I notice increasing reluctance on the part of marketing executives to use judgment; they are coming to rely too much on research, and they use it as a drunkard uses a lamp post for support, rather than for illumination.” - David Ogilvy
Harsh.
Sound like truth?
Yup.
penalty of leadership
Mar 7th
Posted by Bruce in Business Thoughts
“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.
b2b selling, heck, selling in general
Sep 1st
Posted by Bruce in Business Thoughts
Yes. I have an entire white paper on b2b marketing.
But.
Some things just need to be said again (and again and again and again).
For some reason there seems to be a wacky belief that b2b marketing is so radically different from consumer marketing that … well … if you can do one well you could never do the other well.
With that said.
Just out of sheer spite I am going to invest some energy suggesting some thoughts on how the underpinnings are quite similar (so if you are a b2b business and you are speaking with some consumer guy and you think you are wasting your time pay attention because if he/he suggests some of these things they get the nuances and the similarities).
Let me begin with a word I have come to absolutely abhor. Brand (or branding). Inevitably any discussion seems to begin here so I will try and get it out of the way.
Whether your company is selling products or services to individual consumers or to businesses there is a need to get above the “noise.” Creating a branding imprint in the world relevant to you is the “simplifier” and can assist in the sale (and getting a higher price, and getting considered more often, and being differentiated in a sea of sameness, and, well, you get the point).
Look.
Good ‘branding’ is not about stirring rational people into frenzy so they make irrational decisions. It is about communicating the benefits and value proposition that a business or product provides its customers.
Okay. I think I got the “B” word out of the way.
Anyway.
I had this old dated factoid lurking on my computer (and I can only imagine what the numbers are today … higher).
In 1998 the average U.S. office worker received more than 160 messages a day via e-mail, fax, voice mail and conventional mail (lets go ahead and assume it is exponentially bigger now).
Go to a grocery store and you are faced with over 37,000 different products with distinct SKU’s (stock-keeping units) compared to 8,000 in 1970. Some other examples:
| SKUs | 1999 | 1970 |
| Orange juice | 70 | 20 |
| Coke | 25 | 6 |
| Crest Toothpaste | 45 | 15 |
| Philly Cream Cheese | 30 | 3 |
With that many choices establishing some added value (in the form of a brand) is almost necessary to be successful.
Oh.
Thinking that maybe all of a sudden I am not talking about b2b anymore because I used some consumer facings information? Nope.
For every product on the shelf there is a business decision maker choosing to put them on the shelf. So combine the numbers I just gave you above with the fact a grocery buyer is seeing twice as many (ones that end up dying and ones that they just cannot justify putting on the shelf) and all of a sudden you start seeing some of the challenges a b2b marketer faces.
So how the heck do you attack this issue (keeping in mind I am suggesting the more you tie consumer thought process and business thought process the more likely a company will be to be well prepared to meet any customer challenge).
First.
Any business (that includes the sales and marketing departments) has to recognize and plan for various buying styles/attitudes as well as the various buying cycles of their customers (this is the same with anyone b2 or consumer).
I (being JWT trained in customer buying behavior analysis) believe in beginning with the basics.
Let’s call it a Consumer Buying System (because it is called that …. oh … and by the way … a b2b customer is a consumer also … anyway). Think in terms of simple phases/stages in a purchase decision cycle:
- Predisposition.
- Stimulus to act
- Consideration
- Search
- Choose
- Buy
- Experience
(then it circles around again which would be called the “purchase cycle”).
Yeah. Sure. Here you go. An explanation of The Consumer’s Buying System.
This is more than just a theory or model for consumer behavior; it is the key to understanding the purchase process from the consumer’s perspective, and the tool for allocating the right communication resources and sales techniques at the most appropriate points in the cycle.
The easiest way to us it is to put yourself in the consumers’ (prospects, potentials, interested rejecters, customers) shoes and look at the category through their eyes. What makes them enter it in the first place? What criteria must their brand or service selection meet? Where do they get their information about the brands or services in the category, and where do they go to actually make the purchase?
Not all categories involve the same degree of time, effort and consideration. The buying process for chewing gum may last no more than a second or two; for a car it could take months, a business software system could take years and the consumer may make several loops through the search and channel contact phase before actually arriving at the contract/buying stage.
How do we use it?
It’s easy to use (and in its simplicity many may want to complicate it) because once you can describe how the consumer moves through the buying system for your particular category you can ask yourself all the right questions: “Where in this cycle is there a role for advertising, promotion, direct response, PR, telemarketing, sales, etc.?”
So.
Because I am ranting about the b2b specialty that no one can do but b2b specialists let’s look at some real numbers and see how they could be improved by this Consumer Buying System process.
According to recent studies at any given time: 15% is in buy aspect, 70% is not in a buying aspect (43% will enter into a buying cycle in the next 18 months) and 15% will not purchase from your organization.
Ok.
Next.
According to a Marketing Sherpa study:
7% are sales ready, 11% are mid term prospects, 73% are long term prospects and 9% will not purchase from your organization.
You look at these and think you have some good information.
Well. Not really.
In fact.
If I were to take the consumer buying system and apply it against each of those percentages I can actually derive what percentage of all those percentages would be likely to consider me, likely to run across me during a search phase, what percentage I can actually impact (and I could provably figure out what would be most important to say to them if they ‘glanced off of me’ while searching for information that would be most likely to get me back in the game).
In addition I could see what percentage of the buyers (consumers) actually have different criteria they are evaluating in the choose phase then when they were in the consideration phase (you would be surprised how often ‘price’ is a low priority in consider phase and then when choose comes rocking down the road price all of a sudden rears its ugly head … oh … in fact … that is often why companies/people aren’t REALLY choosing the lowest price because their initial consideration set was flawed if they truly wanted the lowest cost provider … anyway).
That’s just a couple of quick examples.
Ok.
Maybe it would help with the b2b people if we call this entire mumbo jumbo ‘Final disposition versus sales staging.’ Yeah. It’s the attempt to gain a true understanding of the status of your potential customers and existing customers all in one buying system analysis/discussion.
Look.
The buying system is simple but complex.
Adding meaningful status or stages to your marketing efforts can greatly enhance visibility into the overall marketing/sales pipeline activities AND put you in a position to understand the timing and movement of your prospects.
So.
Ultimately this process is set up to understand that buying phases exist and having an execution strategy for each phase to drive customers down the path to a transaction (adding value and setting expectations that can be met so that they end up satisfied).
Oh.
Another benefit of this Consumer Buying System thing? Long term consistent performance.
Sales and marketing often treat all prospects and customers the same. They deploy the same strategies, messaging and collateral to all. In doing that of course you obviously lose the ability to deliver relevant content at the appropriate time.
Maybe worse? You lose the ability to build relationships with those that are not in a buying mode but will be at some time in the future. Oh. And you lessen the probability that you will be in front of your customer when they enter a buying mode.
The value of thinking in a ‘consumer buying system’ like this way is you end up thinking long term engagement and not short term project.
Everyone fits into the funnel. Customers, interested, interested rejecters, dissatisfied, whatever. They all fall in and become part of the cycle.
Therefore activity avoids a ‘Project mentality’ (and even ‘just get me some leads to call).
(note: my entire write-up on the company TelAffects addresses this).
An additional benefit is a continuous effort (which maintains any momentum) instead of a more sales driven ‘stop-and-start’ activity style. I guess I could throw in that a continuous buying system communications plan invariably entertains the idea of an “ongoing dialogue’ attitude rather than “oops, I need to talk with you today” attitude (that also inherently strengthens efforts and efficiencies and relationships).
The consumer buying system inherently also integrates activities by simply suggesting it is all one cycle and therefore specific tactics aren’t utilized in a vacuum but rather in coordination with everything else affecting the cycle. And by integration I mean not just traditional marketing but all aspects (let’s call them touch points) of interaction between the company and potential customers.
Ok. I will stop on that discussion point.
You get it. The Buying System forces everyone away from “one off” actions and inherently incorporates a longer term focus (without sacrificing short term).
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
Yet. Many fail to invest in a process (although I just gave one for free) that develop strategies and deploy tactics at each buying mode.
Ok. One last thing.
The buying system thought is dead if you don’t have information.
In fact.
If you use the buying system (which is so frickin’simple) it is difficult to go into data overload and easy to gather pertinent information.
Because it is a thinking process/methodology you are actually systemizing information. Okay. In English that means as you gain data, rather than analyze data, you bucket it first. You put data into the system where the data/information most useful to you.
After a while rather than conducting massive research studies and huge data dumps you are rather simply updating or filling in holes as you gather items.
A process like this stops data overload and lets you actually go ‘do.’
And.
It really helps if you aren’t solely dependent upon research research (you know … traditional qualitative or quantitative research) but rather you have the ability to capture prospect and customer information through sales (or marketing or even telemarketing).
Sales and marketing should be constantly striving to gain information on their possible customers (in fact you can build a parallel consumer buying system for those costumers/consumers who have never purchased from you with the purpose of not getting them to ‘do’ your buying system but seek the moments where they may actually sneak close so you can suck them into yours … uh … that’s called converting competitive users …) and customers that will give them insight into not only their organization’s sales cycles but purchasing behavior.
Often the most overlooked and most valuable information is the information captured directly from your prospects and customers from previous dialogues.
Why does this happen?
Lack of attention from the sales and marketing personnel to gather and enter information.
Lack of consistency across the sales and marketing teams to gather and enter information.
The lack of understanding on how to use the information in a meaningful business dialogue.
These are solvable but that isn’t the point of this write up.
Here is a fact (that many marketing groups fail to see despite its obviousness).
The buying system is truly dependent upon information and information is often most attainable through sales (or any customer interaction including telemarketing and service providers). Once you have the information (an you have something as simple as a Consumer Buying System analysis) it is incredibly easy to Train sales and marketing people on “how” to use the information and “when and where” to use the information (in fact … sometimes the Buying System is so simple that people want to try and get something more ‘complicated’ because something that simple cannot be right).
Look.
(sticking with b2b)
Here’s the deal. Doing more with less seems to be a common issue we all face regardless of our roles or our responsibilities or industry. That means companies just need to be plain smarter with their activities and, in particular, with the information available and how they use that information (and leverage the information across their entire demand creation – consumer buying system – pipeline information process).
Yes.
I have written about a company called TelAffects. I didn’t want to call them telemarketing but, if you do, then you have to admit that many companies never receive the potential benefits of a well planned telemarketing program (read my article if you don’t agree).
People just don’t approach telemarketing in b2b as an effective marketing tool and integrate that activity into the entire process (as a marketing tool as well as an information tool).
Anyway.
The buying system naturally incorporates partners and alliances (telemarketers, crm, service providers, and suppliers) because the all affect the buying system and get built in to the entire fabric weave of interactions.
So.
All that said it all really falls apart if you don’t get the core thinking right.
Core thinking being value proposition, brand strategy and positioning in the marketplace (what need to does the company want to fulfill and how does the company want to be perceived by the customer).
An excellent example of brand vision in the semiconductor equipment industry is provided by Jim Morgan of Applied Materials. As chairman of the world’s leading semiconductor equipment supplier. He said, “Information is power. Information is wealth. Information is self-determination and in the 21stCentury, we have the potential of placing information in the hands of people around the world. This is the promise of the networked economy; the hope of individuals around the world; the purpose of Applied Materials.”
But. Core thinking is an entirely different article and write up.
This is about how b2b isn’t just for b2b rocket scientists. It’s for anyone who is smart enough and understands principles of differentiation and buying behavior.
Enough ranting.
Suffice it to say a good consumer marketing person can do b2b and a good b2b person can do consumer. And that’s that.
about transactional branding
Aug 27th
Posted by Bruce in Business Thoughts
Ok.
I use this term ‘transactional branding’ a lot when I am talking about business and defending why we shouldn’t talk about branding (or at least stop until everyone can turn off the bullshit meters and maybe all agree on terms of usage).
The premise behind the phrase is that excellent marketing/communications/branding activity/whatever you want to call it and business results – transactions – can and should be inextricably linked.
I do believe a truly inspiring insight or idea will inspire positive brand value and inspire consumer action and I call it Transactional Branding.
Now.
Let me be clear.
I wasn’t the genius who came up with the phrase and idea (although the concept behind it has always resided in my pea like brain).
Some guy at an agency I worked at articulated this idea (probably scribbled on a napkin over cocktails) and came up with the phrase and wording in maybe the late 90’s.
I loved it.
My boss loved it (who was actually the president).
Pretty much everyone else hated it.
It’s that damn word transactions.
Marketing and advertising agencies feel like it diminishes their abilities (and their art) to suggest that they do anything transactional
(but … to come to their defense .. while this is a visceral response I have not run into one great marketing/advertising creative mind … EVER … who didn’t understand that ultimately whatever they created needed to generate a business result or their ‘creative idea’ just wasn’t worth a shit).
Anyway. All that said.
Recognizing a brand cannot exist without ongoing sales, revenue or retail traffic seems to be an overlooked topic in the branding world.
Okay. Someone is going to suggest that it is simply ‘understood.’
Well.
It’s not.
In fact there is an entire generation of young marketers entering into the ‘branding world’ thinking it is all about building value (or adding value).
Well geez … adding value on ‘what.’ Not a logo. Or not on some culture. The value has to be added to … well … some ‘thing.’
And, oh by the way, that ‘thing’ needs some sales, revenue or traffic or your ‘thing’ will become ‘no-thing.’ (let alone a brand).
So this transactional branding concept means building the ‘encourage consumer action’ into the branding effort. In other words, create business outcomes today so the brand lives tomorrow.
It’s kind of a simple concept.
Some people may call it ‘holistic’ or something (maybe not).
Anyway.
How it works:
One brand idea. One brand voice. One brand strategy. An integrated communications plan with multiple tactics (which can be changed constantly because the strategy remains the same).
- note: see my glocal article on my point of view on flexibility in execution.
It begins by identifying ‘the’ inspiring insight (typically the marriage between consumer and brand insight).
Of course you identify the desired business results.
You identify the best communications/marketing ideas to generate the best results.
You develop smart insightful creative messaging (within the organization as well as externally to insure some alignment).
Then you measure results and adjust tactics as appropriate.
Whew.
Sounds simple.
Bottom line.
Here is the tricky part (t least to me)
Everything emanates from the inner truth (the essence, the company value insight, the cultural & functional core of the organization, whatever you want to call it) of the company. THAT my friends is really the brand.
All you are doing with transactional branding is sharing your ‘brand’ with people and let them fall in love with you (hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm … and really the only way they can fall in love with you is if they go out on an actual date … uh .. a transaction.)
So from that ‘inner thing’ you get to create some inspiring brand idea and incorporate it into tactics that create transactions.
THAT is Transactional Branding.
Oh.
And if you buy this thought/philosophy. It isn’t just about advertising or marketing.
Transactional Branding is about working on all aspects of a business – from traditional and non-traditional tactics to in-store to organizational attitudes and behaviors and … well … whatever. Because brand and transactions are so inextricably linked that it is about internal organization equal to, if not more important, than what is done externally wit customers.
Oh.
One last great thing about attaching transactional and brand.
It’s all about “selling ‘more’ of what they want to sell at a higher price.”
Whew.
Doesn’t get much better than that if you are running a business, does it?
decommoditization (no longer being a commodity)
Aug 19th
Posted by Bruce in Business Thoughts
So.
It seems like I have been talking with a lot of b2b businesses (technology, software, backroom type stuff) lately and we inevitably begin talking about ‘brands, branding & being different.” Three painful B’s.
And then a lot of discussion circles around understanding b2b versus traditional consumer marketing (which usually drives me slightly nuts until we get past that discussion).
- note: I have an entire downloadable white paper on b2b marketing so I won’t waste a lot of time on that discussion here.
Anyway.
I have some b2b experience but wouldn’t qualify as an ‘expert’ based on my resume.
However. Here is the deal.
Unless you have worked only at “glamor brand” companies (think Nike, Coke, McDonalds, etc) you have spent an entire career making your unglamorous brand/company/service not look like a commodity (because pretty much all non-glamor brands all get thrown into some confused perception/awareness cluster).
Oh.
By the way.
Even ‘glamor’ brands struggle with differentiation (or not dropping into a functional commodity status) in the b2b market (see Kodak, IBM, etc. as prime examples).
So.
Unless you have worked on a glamor brand where people line up to show your logo somewhere on their body you have had to become an expert in the decommoditozation business.
I know I have on my resume (somewhere) something like “an ability to differentiate in commodity like categories.”
What do I mean by ‘commodity-like’? Think banking, grocery stores, department stores, pest control, motor oil, eye drops, pretty much any P&G product you can think of, healthcare, cellular.
(all industries of which I have worked in).
Well. Okay. That said.
Nowadays with the advent of the internet and an endless depth of available information almost everyone is in a commodity like category.
Oh. And other than a happy few this also summarizes almost the entire b2b category. Everyone fighting themselves out of the ‘lowest cost provider’ status into ‘great value’ (which by the way is ‘brand’) status.
It doesn’t sound glamorous but I haven’t been in the branding business or the marketing business or whatever strategy business someone wants to call it … I have been in the decommoditization business.
And, in fact, (beyond me) anyone who says something like that in an interview? Hire them. And hire them now.
In today’s world the moment you stop and rest on the thought you are a ‘brand’ and have added value in someone’s mind (b2b or consumer) is the moment you start creeping back into commodityland (which is not nearly as fun as Disneyland). It takes work (inside a company and outside a company – marketing stuff) but it can be done. You can get someone to drive past 3 supermarkets to get to yours. You can get someone to pay more money for some software program written in code Albert Einstein couldn’t understand. You can get someone to choose your widget over 22 other similar widgets. But only if you are relentlessly focused on clearly and concisely de-commoditizing.
Hugh MacLeod did this cartoon and I laughed because I don’t know him personally but he used almost the exact same words I/we used in a new business presentation to a state tourism business in the late 90’s (and then used over and over again with retail and commodity-like businesses).
It’s not just advertising.
If you own a business or selling anything to anyone life isn’t top down (brand to product). Life is down to up (constantly seeking to insure your head is above the commodity water).
Does that sound defensive?
God. I hope not.
It’s just smart. It doesn’t mean you aren’t on the offensive and building value and thinking long term it simply means you have a practical objective – I don’t want to be a damn commodity.
Interestingly.
I am going to end on a personal note about de-commoditizing. Hugh wrote this (I believe .. I lost the source):
“The best way to offset one’s own commodification is to build one’s own personal “global microbrand”, irrespective one own employer.”Brand You”, as the great Tom Peters called it way back in 1997. A good blog works about as well as anything. And no, you don’t have to be an A-Lister.”
So.
I guess while I talk the talk in interviews and with businesses and whomever will listen to me … I am also in a way walking the walk by building a blog (two of them in fact) and maybe I can become my own global microbrand.
Now.
How cool would that be?
Bruce. No longer a commodity. Awesome.
organizational alignment part 2
May 12th
Posted by Bruce in Business Thoughts
“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
Posted by Bruce in Business Thoughts

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.
when an Immutable Law is broken does it make a sound?
Mar 15th
Posted by admin in Business Thoughts
So. In 1993 a pretty smart couple of guys wrote a book called The 22 Immutable Laws of Marketing (the smart guys were Al Ries and Jack Trout).
Here are the first two of The 22 Immutable Laws:
1. It is better to be first than it is to be better.
2. If you can’t be first in a category, set up a new category you can be first in.
Uh oh. Apple has mastered making these laws unimmutable. (I am concerned that is not a word).
I am not sure people have noticed (because I believe when you break one of these laws they don’t make any sound) but Apple has been quite successful by not being first at anything they have done nor created any new categories. They have possibly become the absolute best “follower” in the history of business.
Apple is regularly voted the most innovative company in the world. But I am not sure that is the award they should be winning. Its inventiveness takes a peculiar form in that it is “renovation” rather than building. They should be voted the best “renovator” company in the world (boy, that sounds like a shitty award to win, huh?).
What do I mean? Rather than developing entirely new product categories Apple is excellent at taking existing ideas which may not be optimally implemented and showing the rest of the world how to implement them in a much more appealing way.
It has already done this three times.

In 1984 Apple launched the Macintosh. It was not the first graphical, mouse-driven computer, but it employed these concepts in a useful, pleasant appearance product (they kind of not only understand the usability function, but they also understood that their product – most often seen as a desk accessory – was a fashion statement for the user).

In 2001, came the iPod. It was not the first digital-music player, but it was simple and elegant, and carried digital music into the mainstream (and once again they understood the “fashion” aspect of the product).

In 2007 Apple launched the iPhone. It was not the first smart-phone, but Apple succeeded where other handset makers had failed, making mobile internet access and software downloads a mass-market phenomenon (and fashionable again).
As competitors rushed to respond to Apple’s approach, the computer, music and telecom industries were transformed.

Here comes their fourth attempt at renovation. The iPad — a thin, tablet-shaped device with a ten-inch touch-screen. Hey. Who knows if it will be successful. Apple has certainly had their share of failures but even in their failures they have been spectacular.
But this isn’t a post on whether they are good at these things. This is about Apple breaking Immutable Laws and being good at something else – Renovation.
So. In the end I believe I like, really like (although I don’t own an i-pod and I hate Macs), Apple because they are a renovator and not a builder (sort of like me but they are bigger and better than I am).
As a great ‘Renovator,’ Apple has this innate ability to identify the essence of an existing or emerging product category, identify the parts (or pieces…whatever) and then put usability at the core of these pieces, making them famous with a really cool façade feature. Somebody called it “re-hashing half baked concepts” but I call it Renovation.
Apple is the ultimate Renovator.
So. With all that said…I think that stupid sounding award I suggested earlier is a valuable award. And nothing to be embarrassed by. Being the best at something is nothing to be embarrassed by.
I vote for Apple as Renovator of the Year if not the century.




