Posts tagged it isn’t process it is the work
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.
testing creative: how it sharpens and how it dulls the idea
Jan 10th
part of being in an advertising agency is the infamous discussion about testing creative before it is produced. Testing the actual creative concepts in other words.
Let me begin with two thoughts:
- “The way in which advertising influences customer choice is not a tidy, mechanistic process. It is an extremely untidy, often irrational, human process.” (Jeremy Elliott, JWT)
- Ongoing creative testing has a habit of dulling sharp ideas which can be developed in concise upfront testing
Look. We are in business to create great work. But. “We don’t want to be known as the people who create brilliantly crafted failures.” Great work builds client’s brands and sells client’s stuff. Great work makes consumers sit up and go “WOW.” Great work makes clients money through greater ‘full revenue’ volume and it makes us proud to say, “Yeah, we did that.” (both at the same time).
And with all that said … talking about testing creative ideas drives me crazy.
No. The consumer should never be neglected. But. Nor should they be empowered to tell us how to say something.
I believe in using research to inform decisions, not to make them.
We should use consumer research at the beginning of the whole advertising process to find out what to say, not how to say it. period. Stop.
Is that extreme? Yup.
Does that mean I don’t believe in quantitative research on creative? Nope. I just tend to believe valuable quantitative creative research is the exception. The majority of time creative testing dulls great sharp creative ideas. It smooths them out to be less extreme. And in today’s world being gray may make you feel better but it won’t generate the interest and results needed to break through a challenging fragmented world.
Now. I don’t want to confuse creative testing with positioning research.
Depending on the scope of the project strategic development research or positioning research done in innovative sometimes non-traditional thinking ways can uncover the best way to truly find out what the potential customer thinks.
A research plan of action should do something very simple very well. Talk to the inner brand and customers and consumers. The information received at this stage forms the objectives of the work, the key idea to be communicated, and to maybe set some guidelines on just the right brand personality. But you also have to mix what you learn from these conversations with what we know about the client’s marketing problems, and the dynamics of their business (that is a subjective component).
Using all this observation, all this hard and soft research, as well as our own personal experiences, we then should turn it into creative insightful thinking. We should be synthesizing some core truths about the brand into relevant consumer insights.
These research-guided truths become the foundation for our creative solutions.
Oh.
We can also use research to find out if we are saying what we intended to say.
You can call this “creative development research.” Yes, this is evaluative research but our purpose here is only to develop and nurture work, not to kill it. Not to “ask permission” of customers or clients to go with the work.
Although i do not in principle object to using research to inform our creative decisions in the end I struggle with some research because i do not believe in using research alone to judge the validity or effectiveness of the work.
Why? because we, not just me, know that the critical deconstruction that takes place within research just doesn’t happen with exposure in real life.
I guess I get frustrated sometimes because if we’re not careful the research will test the quality of stimulus rather than the quality of the ideas. It will test the quality of the presenter, or the quality of the drawings on the storyboards, or any number of irrelevant details. We always want to protect the ideas (big or not) and give them the best chance of survival, to keep the work from being” pecked to death by ducks.” Allow the ideas to keep the ‘sharp edges’ that make them interesting and stand out.
The simple fact is that bad research kills good ideas.
The more complex fact is that too much research can also kill good ideas.
Ok.
(said calmly) Here are some things to remember:
+ Storyboards don’t have the magic of finished commercials.
+ Commercials that have a familiar feel often “score” better than commercials that are unique, strange, odd or new.
+ Disagreement in groups can be a good thing, because great ideas are often polarizing.
+ Individual opinions will often differ radically from opinions offered by groups. And one group often says one thing and the next group, another.
+ We should not take what consumers say literally.
+ Remember, we use research to inform our decisions, not to make them.
+ We do not let the group become Copywriters and Art Directors.
+ Clinical research settings often produce different responses than research done out in the field, in the bars, the malls, on the street.
What would I do if pushed into a corner and said research had to happen with creative?
1. Use qualitative (I do lean toward online focus groups these days) to inform on wording and ideas and claims and stuff like that. No storyboards or creative concepts involved. Use this to gain nuggets of knowledge with which to use as the creative ideas are developed.
2. Use quantitative (if necessary at all) to isolate which executions are most effective in communicating awareness/likeability/intent to act/specific understanding (of some specific element). I lean toward some interest scan or MillwardBrown Link testing simply because it can inform you of some possible specific communication obstacles’ within an execution which if you are open to ‘fixing’ can improve an overall score. The most expensive way to do this is with finished executions (which some clients are open to) and the least expensive way is story board format (rips in the middle).
There you go. A lot of people will disagree with this. but an agency gets judged by the quality of their effective work. Yes. quality of work and effectiveness. Combined. Research tends to make the creative more mediocre. That is bad. Which then tends to soften possible sales/purchase spikes (you miss out on the higher highs). That is bad.
This is about physics (in a way). 
The sharper the idea the easier it cuts through clutter and the less money it takes to make the idea noticed. The duller the idea the more effort it takes to cut through the rest of the stuff out there (and into a consumer’s mind). I don’t know if that is a postulate but I do know i can prove this in my own kitchen with a dull knife.
Bottom line?
In today’s business environment it seem like we should be seeking less opportunities to play it safe and more opportunities to smartly stand out.
Let me say this another way.
Take more smart chances.
Go and do.
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.
hard work & smarts & laziness & leaders
Apr 13th
“There are only four types of officer. First, there are the lazy, stupid ones. Leave them alone, they do no harm…Second, there are the hard- working, intelligent ones. They make excellent staff officers, ensuring that every detail is properly considered. Third, there are the hard- working, stupid ones. These people are a menace and must be fired at once. They create irrelevant work for everybody. Finally, there are the intelligent, lazy ones. They are suited for the highest office.”
General Erich Von Manstein
Every once in awhile you come across an intriguing quote from an unexpected source. Von Manstein was a Prussian general. I don’t know. I guess I never thought a Prussian would link laziness to any possible option for positive words or beliefs.
And I guess I find it interesting that a general would recognize the aspects of leadership so well.
One implication he certainly communicates is that you want to build the average intelligence up in your organization (regardless of their work ethic).
Another implication is the interesting mix of thinkers and doers and the common characteristics within an effective “officer group” (think management team in an organization).
Regardless, he is suggesting the best staff (organization) is a mix of lazy & hard working intelligent people (boy … I wish I could have had Erich visit a couple of business owners I have known).
I would imagine I find this interesting because in today’s world I feel organizations tend to reward diligence more so than smarts, or intellectual curiosity, and certainly more so than ‘laziness’ (even of you are smarter than a whip).
Current business operations acumen is one of which reward and evaluation systems dominate. And that is regardless of the actual importance of thought and reflection to the long term organization’s success (despite the fact thought/reflection has been proven to wither in an evaluation/reward system).
So. To translate. In our world you are better off looking busy than looking like you are thinking thereby organizations encourage diligence at the expense of reflection/laziness.
This even though “reflection” can be fulfilling intellectual curiosity by gathering information and gathering facts and things like that (so you could be more effective “hard working”).
Thinking, reflection or even ‘laziness’ isn’t acceptable in the working world today because it isn’t “productive.” Or measurable. Or can be counted (this is a parallel with my ‘not everything that can be counted counts’ post).
Hey. I have been tempted throughout this entire post to be sarcastic or be cynical and I believe I have been very good at avoiding it up to this point (just want to point all of that out. Don’t worry. I think in my next post I will make up some of the ground I just lost on the cynical battlefront).
Anyway. Every once in awhile we can look to some past learning and gain some insights for today. Even from some guy who looks like he has a stick up his ass and hasn’t smiled in his entire life. Oh. But could manage an army to kick any army’s butt it fought. So. Maybe this guy knew what he was talking about.
nothing is Indispensable (especially a brand)
Jan 26th
Illustrator Harry Grant Dart’s vision of the increasingly aggressive and intrusive character of advertising in turn-of-the-century America appeared in a 1909 issue of Life. During this period, the growth of mass production and mass marketing changed the way consumer goods were bought and sold. Information about products now came not from those who made or sold them, but from persuasive advertisements trying to create brand recognition and brand loyalty. Advertisements moved out of separate sections in the back of magazines, as the newest periodicals featured full-page ads and depended upon advertising, rather than subscriptions, for their revenue. Coordinated advertising campaigns using billboards, store displays, and electric signs, became common.
I am not sure if this is a rant or a diatribe. But. I read something the other day about making brands indispensable.
Okay. Let’s talk about indispensable. Sure. Many great traditions dictate some “indispensable” actions. Getting married and diamonds. New Years Eve and alcohol. Love and flowers. Emotional traditions are the strongest links to indispensable. Functional indispensables? Water. Food. And beer (to college kids).
An indispensable brand? (harrumph. Bet you haven’t seen that in awhile)
To ever believe you can make your brand indispensable to me is arrogant. You can make it useful. You can intertwine it in a positive way into the lives of people. You can even make people emotional about it. Indispensable? To the wacky few maybe (yeah. We have all seen that guy who only buys Coke apparel and products for his family every Christmas. And maybe the pez connoisseur.) But don’t be fooled by these fanatical few. You love ‘em as a manufacturer (oops, brand). But you can’t build a brand around them. In fact in some cases you hesitate to make too big deal about them.
Brands become “brands” because a certain group of people have deigned to anoint your product as such. And the most loyal of this group are probably “head over heels in like” with you. I purposefully use like here. In today’s world “brand love” is not a common thing (maybe in the 50’s when people had fewer choices and no internet to create educational doubt). The best it seems to get resides “in like.” What that means is the brand is not even close to being indispensable; rather it is always one mistake away from “I like you but I want to date other people.”
So how do you remain “a head over heels in like brand”?
First and foremost. Usefulness. Yup. Pretty functional but pretty essential. Some expert folks call this the ‘price-value equation.’ Whatever. Just be clear about this. The moment your brand does not meet use expectations it has become dispensable. And people just won’t like you any more <that is bad>. That is why I made this first and foremost.
Second. Equal emotional engagement, i.e., do you like me as much as I like you? True brands have emotional things attached to the functional usefulness. To make it an ongoing relationship both sides have to communicate the emotion. Buyers do it with dollars and displaying your logo. Sellers do it…well…with whatever may match the emotional relationship. Here is what I mean (let me be a guy for a moment). While I could give “things” to someone I date all the time nothing trumps a good “hey. I love you” in words. Oh. And the love is reciprocated in some way. Hey. Does that mean all gifts (i.e., loyalty programs, promotions, etc.) are unnecessary? Nope. It’s balance. Buyers & sellers need some balance to maintain the emotional aspect of the relationship. Gifts are part of it and words are part of it and … well .. just as with any relationship … there is are lots of moving parts. But both have to believe it is worth it and it’s not just ‘wooing’ (I wanted to type that word) by the seller all the time.
Hey. If you read any of my other stuff you will see a strong thread of “dreamer” (or belief in aspirational) objectives in my belief infrastructure. I like thinking big. I like dreaming. And believe it has value in organizational management. But, with ‘brands? I just struggle with “indispensable.”
Just a last thought on this.
I do think of brands as marriages.
Think of it this way … in a ‘courting phase’ I believe it is unhealthy for one to try and make themselves look indispensable in seeking a long term relationship. In addition I also tend to believe if one partner purposefully seeks to be indispensable in a relationship it is unhealthy.
Great marriages are some give and take. Some communication. Some respect. And the understanding that you are “right” for each other and imperfections … well … can make it a perfect fit.
And I also believe the moment one partner feels indispensable things are out of whack. But, hey, I am no Dr. Phil. And I am no “Brand Expert.” This is just my opinion.
interviewing for jobs: The Bruce 2.0 version
Jan 12th
I call this Interviewing 2.0 (it’s probably really version 2.11374 but let’s not quibble) because I am trying to get into the entire interviewing lingo that seems to be bombarding job seekers leading into the New Year. And I was hanging in there alright until I got to “10 ways to destroy your personal brand.” Oh boy. Let’s get started on my rant (although I will offer some advice). So. Before we get to actual interviewing let me get this off my chest about personal brand and branding:
Ok admit. The way people throw around the word brand nowadays drives me nuts. And the whole concept of building a “personal brand” is such a foreign wacko concept to me it is hard to wrap my head around. With all the stress that comes with unemployment and interviewing (and all the zillion perspectives of interview advice you can find online) trying to develop a personal brand seems like a crazy decision to make. When I hear ‘personal brand’ all I can think of is Ricky Henderson (i.e., speaking about yourself in the third person).
- A typical Ricky Henderson interview. Ricky when asked,
“Well, Ricky, he is the best base stealer of all time.”
“Ricky came to play tonight.”
“Ricky was seeing the ball well.”
Skip to your own interview. So tell me something about yourself. (you answering)
“The Bruce brand is an engaging brand and really good at…bla bla bla ”
(WTF).
I believe the minute you start referring to yourself as a brand (figuratively not literally…I assume no one would actually talk about their personal brand in an interview) you have lost it.
I buy the fact that the principles behind establishing a brand in the marketplace and establishing yourself to a company are similar, but in an interview you are a person (not a brand) talking with another person (who isn’t seeking to buy a brand but rather hire a person). But. Hey. If you want to be the best can of soup in the interview, more power to ya.
BUT. Remember. It may be semantics but there is no such thing as “building a brand.” You can build a great product or service. Deliver it consistently over time. Meet or exceed expectations. Do it consistently within a personally or character type. And, well, at some point people will award a brand status to the product/service. Remember. You do not claim a brand status. You are given, or earn, a brand status. So. I would argue if you are aiming to “build a personal brand” you run the risk of ignoring the underpinnings necessary because you are aiming for “becoming a brand” rather than a superior consistent functional delivery person.
Anyway. With all that said. So. Back to interviewing. During an economic downturn, people can be pulled every which way with job searching advice from someone holding up a Bible quoting ‘eternal advice’ (just a note: I don’t believe Moses was the first choice for that job) to, well, anyone who has had an interview and wants to hand out their version of job searching wisdom.
This “deep recession” (sorry to tell you but it’s a depression) creates some desperation and that makes people vulnerable. And that is a bad thing when you are interviewing. This is a time where people especially need wise counsel and not superlative buzzword lingo which confuses people from simplicity.
So. My advice? Forget about building your own personal brand. Forget about all the wacky voodoo incantations that will win you the interview question challenge. Focus on simplicity (or your head will be filled with so much goo it may explode – which is embarrassing in an interview – and you won’t be able to coherently answer anything anyway).
Beyond all the interview coaching and seminars and such (which make my head spin so much I am not sure I would actually know what to do in an interview if I tried to follow all the coaching advice) interviewing comes down to two things:
- Functional competency (can you do the job)
- Chemistry (do you fit into culture and team…or…do we like you)
I would argue that if you nail these two things in an interview then things like salary and benefits and titles all fall into place. Completing a great interview process is similar to when you find something you cannot live without – you will pay full price and not wait for a promotion – you have to have it now. So if you go do your job in the interview process that is the prize (and oh by the way…keep that attitude throughout: “Buy me at full price, this is not a promotion” it is a healthy perspective for you to have regardless how badly you need a job).
Okay now. Remember. There are some things you can control and some things you cannot control in an interview (so don’t waste energy trying to control what you can’t is what I am trying to say):
What you can control:
- What you are good at
- Being yourself
What you cannot control:
- Who they (the company) are culturally
- What they are good at
So. I am going to actually start with Chemistry to get it out of the way (because Competency is the key to interviewing).
What I am getting at with ‘You can’t control their culture’ is you actually can’t control the chemistry factor. Just like eHarmony relationships, you can get a ‘match’ but when you meet “it’s” either there or it ain’t (you know. the elusive “it” whatever it is that makes chemistry click). You may wish for a relationship to bud but you cannot fake it or make it. However, you can control who you are so they (and you) can judge whether you are a good fit for them.
“Be true to thineself.”
Shakespeare
Bottom line is if they like you (or like the idea of you being part of their team) you are in the game. They won’t choose you solely on this but chemistry is valuable particularly in this day and age of lean company structure. So be yourself. Don’t try to be anything else.
Sure. There are some cosmetic things you can be flexible with. They all wear ties and you hate wearing ties. Unless that is a deal breaker to you wear a tie and shut up about it (when you interview AND if you get the job).
Last thought on ‘Be true to thineself.’ If you try and act one way to get the job and then you get the job one of two things happen:
- You revert to yourself at some point and they get confused and probably unhappy (and want to break up at some point), or
- You try to act that way all the time and are pretty unhappy every morning you wake up to go to work.
Chemistry in this case ain’t created. It either is or it isn’t. And the only way you can be sure is if you just be yourself. Don’t worry. Most companies aren’t seeking clones so they aren’t expecting you to act like them. Just that you fit in their culture and there is some chemistry (and chemistry takes an even higher priority these days because everyone runs so lean things can get a little stressful on occasion).
So. Let’s talk competence.
Here is where I disagree with many of the wise interview experts. I hear sell sell sell. Make sure you show results. Bla bla bla. Yeah. Sure. But here’s the deal: Stay within yourself and your personality. If you don’t like talking about results because you feel uncomfortable about it, don’t. Trust me. If you feel uncomfortable talking about ‘results you have generated’ it will show. And who knows. Mayb
e their culture is one of humbleness. Anyway. The whole “quantify what you have done” rule kind of throws me a little.
And let’s be serious. If you interview for a sales position you talk all that sales gobbledygook. If you interview for an engineering slot you bring the calculator and show the whizz-bang co-tangent of a molecule. If you are interviewing for a mechanic position then know how to change brakes. And if you are an accountant, bring a green visor and abacus. You pretty much know the gig on your competency.
And competency. However you define it comes down to “Can you do the job they are interviewing you for?”
I personally don’t care how you prove that. Show results? Sure. Track record of successes? Ok. Talk your way through your process to get things done? Sure. Just pick a way that feels comfortable for you. Because if you do then you are aligned with your own chemistry and your answer will be comfortable.
And, frankly, if you can’t show you are competent in the role then chemistry doesn’t matter. But I also have to tell you most people who are interviewing for a particular job are revealed in the first five minutes of an interview whether they are at least in the competency range of adequacy or not. You can’t prepare for questions or bone up on things (although I am all for doing homework on job and company before going into an interview). Because you are either competent or not.
Here is a thought. Competency means you know the vocabulary and you talk it well enough that an outsider doesn’t understand a frickin thing if they eavesdrop on one of your in depth conversations. (At least that’s my criteria for you knowing your stuff) But oh by the way. It should be you talking and discussing (and if you are passionate about something go ahead and be passionate). Don’t try and bring out the latest marketing fad (or suggest that something isn’t part of your personal brand DNA. Ouch).
Ok. Someone is going to start jabbing at me on preparing for interview questions. Look. The questions you receive are typically a reflection of their culture. You may get thrown a curve ball but you cannot go wrong if you stick with “competency”. They have a job open. They have a functional need. Tell them how you can meet that need completely.
I swear to you. If you stick with functional competency as fall back you won’t go wrong. (note word ‘fallback’). What I mean.
Specific questions you answer specifically. Unfortunately that means “listen” and then “respond”. (yeah. You have to listen to the question…and feel free and ask for clarification if you aren’t sure).
Vague questions (like “tell me about yourself” or “what are you like in the office” or stuff like that). Competency. Fall back on answers centered around delivering on the functional need of the role you are interviewing for. If they want a “fuzzy feel good” answer they will ask you that question (hint: “I know you can do the job but I want to get a feel for what you are like”). By the way. Even feel good answers revolving around competency ain’t bad like “well. I am pleased you believe I can do the job. That is actually a reflection of what I am like. Performance or doing the job well is important to me.” Then go ahead and bla bla bla about yourself.
Next. I am gonna get jabbed on “competent means average”. Baloney. Get in the game first. Superlatives are dangerous. Being “exceptional” is a very dangerous game. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be confident you can fulfill the role they have outlined. Pound away on consistently capable of delivering on functional need of the role you are interviewing for. (See. This isn’t about building your brand. Nuts and bolts stuff).
It’s possible I have simplified this too much but I don’t think so. In times of stress I have found simplicity is the way to go (and interviewing is stressful). That said I imagine my biggest issue with all this online advice is that while I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer I have interviewed hundreds of people as a manager and interviewed for jobs myself a number of times and even I get confused on what to prepare, how to prepare, what to say, what not to say and how to act.
So. In the end I aim for simplicity:
- Be prepared.
- Be yourself.
- Be competent for what they need done.
Anything beyond that and I am not sure what good it does. Oh. Maybe that’s the stuff that builds your personal brand.
Marketing in a Recession (Part 1): you can’t hide from recession
Jan 7th
Note: This is the first of a two-part piece that I wrote early last year for my agency and clients about marketing in a recession. Look for part 2 in the coming days.
The current environment is one that cannot be ignored. We are in a recession. People, businesses and consumers, have less discretionary money. Businesses will be cutting back on expenses and marketing departments will have to do more with less. This means that business goals will still be there and more challenging to meet and Marketing departments will have to do it with less money. This white paper outlines some thoughts on how marketers can be a little smarter with their money to position themselves to be successful in the marketplace.
Let’s begin by talking about what is happening in the marketplace. And why maybe some of the past recession rules may not apply moving forward in 2009.
Comparing the 2008-2009 recession to past recessions
This generation hasn’t faced this scenario before. In fact, not many adults who dealt with this scenario in the 1930’s remain (to maybe guide us). Yes. I am suggesting we cannot compare recent recession learning and need to go back to the Great Depression for learning.
In a traditional recession people are worried about losing jobs as companies cut back to face the economic challenges. In the current scenario the entire financial infrastructure seems to be breaking down – globally. Boy, that sounds like the Depression era doesn’t it? Entire companies, brands as they may be, which have been in existence through generations are crumbling. Icons of stability are not only looking less stable they are ceasing to exist.
The difference between now and recent recession periods in the consumer’s mind can be summarized – “I am worried about losing my job versus even if I do all of these things right and keep my job can I still make it.” Don’t be surprised when people shift into a full survival mode. And not just low and middle income people but even large wealth groups.
In this kind of environment it may seem silly to talk about marketing or protecting your brand. But these topics are relevant to business success and the economy in general. The economy machine will continue to run on strong functional products and services being marketed to people. ‘Fluff’ products and services-products and services surviving more on image than performance and ‘fluff’ marketing-will not survive.
Discretionary versus non-discretionary category marketing
The marketing rules of the game are going to vary between discretionary and non-discretionary categories. People will treat marketing messages for “items I need” and “items I want” with a different scorecard.
Discretionary categories, like soda, cigarettes, candy, movies, etc., will certainly be able to get away with traditional image driven campaigns. In fact, historical evidence suggests that lower cost discretionary items will prosper in difficult economic times (according to annualized increases in consumer spending in the UK 1989-91 movie revenue grew 16%, alcohol 10%, and sports & toys 6% – source: DDB “capturing opportunities in challenging times.”).
Bottom line is that in uncertain times people will still be seeking moments of indulgence or escapism. They will just be more thoughtful and low cost indulgent moments will prosper.
It is in non-discretionary-like categories where things will get challenging. Branding campaigns, soft image driven look & feel, in non-discretionary categories will be bad. Very bad. They will be seen as the actions of uncaring, “fat” companies. (see recent example of automotive CEO’s flying first class to Washington DC meeting). Campaigns need not be pedantic but they should err on the side of being more overt in their messaging of benefits and value. Companies messaging and spending cannot be perceived as wasteful but useful, not pandering but compassionate and not imagery but rather benefit-driven.
