Enlightened Conflict

giraffes I have known

May 16th, 2013

 

Well.giraffe crazy look

 

One of the most discussed topics in the hallowed backrooms of marketing & advertising think tanks in the creative process is “the metaphorical icon” which not only captures the essence of what it is they want to say … but can become some useable thought to extend out beyond the TV commercial, the magazine ad … the whatever tangible paid marketing and inject itself seamlessly into culture <to the entertainment of the public and the advantage of the marketer>.

 

Here is the thing.

 

No creative person likes to talk about it <the extendable metaphor>… and no one wants to aim for it … because these kinds of ideas just kind of happen for a variety of reasons.

 

Suffice it to say … the more you want it the less it happens. And of course the corollary … the less you think about it the more likely you will think of something like that.

 

The only people who discuss it? Typically the corporate people <I want something like “x” company did … can we do something like that?>, scared marketing /advertising executives to their development teams <”x” company did that and we need to come up with something like that – please note the silent “you better” underlying> or just hack senior management <we need a metaphorical icon or a mnemonic device … come up with one>.

 

Regardless.

 

giraffe gnomeEvery time someone suggests “I want something like that little <annoying> gnome that Travelocity has” or “can’t you guys come up with something like that giant asparagus … you know … the jolly green giant?” creative teams cringe.

 

Heck.

 

Most people with a brain cringe.

 

Anyway.

 

When it works it works. Sometimes it even works in ways you could never imagine <ok … you can imagine … just never imagined it would happen with your idea> and sometimes it just works <and you have to avoid the temptations to make it better than the good idea it is>.

 

Unfortunately. Sometimes it doesn’t work. And it cannot work in a couple of ways.

 

It can simply be a bad idea that is just bad <simple as that>.

 

Or it can be a forced idea … one where an icon or visual device is forced in because it was demanded in the assignment.

 

And it is the latter I am gonna mention here … and I get to talk about Giraffes.

 

Some hotel. Oh. Not a hotel … an inn … Residence Inn.

 

Residence Inn Giraffe: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEhLVwK5uCQ

 

Yup.

 

It seems that Residence Inn caters to giraffe-like people. giraffe manor-windowApparently research must have suggested they must travel a lot <along with some other animal like people I guess as you will see later on>.

 

Apparently this “Inn” has extremely high ceilings, lots of head space for those really tall people who are traveling all the time, for people to feel comfortable in.

 

Oh. But the giraffe is in bed. So they have really long beds?

 

Sometimes the metaphor is kind of a stretch <pun intended>.

 

I get it is a “spacious” room … but … I am not really sure a traveler wants to be a giraffe <even metaphorically>.

 

What do I mean? Oh. Don’t lions eat giraffes? Oops. The lions must stay at other places.

 

<note: there is actually a Hotel Giraffe in new York city … I have never been there … google informed me … apparently it is an “oasis of sophisticated style” which embodies the gentle power, grace and beauty found in one of nature’s most beloved animals … so if you do not want to go to the zoo and feel like a Giraffe … stay there >

 

Next up for Residence Inn?

 

An elephant.

 

Residence Inn Elephant: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjrhMEIoNwA

 

And they have used penguins.

 

Well.

 

I know their next product extension.

 

A zoo.

 

Look.

 

I don’t hate the commercial … of course it is well done <done by McGarryBowen I think> and metaphorically I get where they are going:

 

-         I imagine it all began with some brand manager standing up in the front of a room pounding the table saying something like “everyone listen … we ARE different … not only are we an Inn instead of a Hotel … but Inn rooms are bigger than Hotel rooms … LOTS more bigger … we aren’t talking inches but square feet for gods sake … spacious … almost cavernous … no … so spacious you can almost roam the space like the wide grasslands of the open wild.”

 

giraffe at computerIt was an impassioned speech based on what is probably a true, if not discernibly different or truly important, functional aspect semi-relevant to someone sleeping in a room who is ultimately there only to do business for the time they are out of the bed <and out of the room> but extremely relevant to the company and its employees.

 

Meanwhile, somewhere else in the same room, a brand planner lounged in a chair languidly using some big words to suggest that business people who stay extended amounts of time in a hotel <oops … Inn> have read every positive thinking sales/business book ever written and every time they step across the threshold out into the real world in the morning they pump up their confidence <and their fist> like they are going to battle. They need to stand tall with confidence. The planner even probably summarized the project brief with something like “Residence Inn. Stand Tall.” And everyone sagely nodded their heads in unison and said “brilliant insight.”

 

<note: somewhere in the back of the room a bored creative guy – who was kind of chuckling on and off again at the rambling idiots briefing them – doodled a giraffe standing in the middle of a room thinking “maybe I could shove this giraffe up some brand manager’s butt”>

 

So.

 

When are giraffes relevant in marketing? Gosh. Maybe For African documentaries? Ok. Ok. Toys ‘r Us developed a fabulous idea with a giraffe many years ago. Geoffrey the Giraffe.  Fabulous. One of those ideas of which if they could have come up with it maybe two years earlier and had a CMO who had the kahones <and brains> to maximize it … they may have avoided some of the business challenges they inevitable encountered.

 

Anyway.

 

I understand that advertising is difficult … to be entertaining as well as trying to communicate some functional useful reason for someone to spend money on you … but sometimes it becomes too far a reach in the use of metaphors.

 

The biggest argument <slam> I am going to receive from the otherwise brilliant McGarry people is “but people remember the advertising <with positive perceptions.>”giraffe cuddling

 

(me) Yeah, yeah, yeah.

 

See my ‘awareness isn’t enough’ post <its not enough to just be remembered … that is a low unprofessional bar>.

 

I absolutely recognize It is a difficult category <the hotel, motel, Holiday Inn category … to use Sugar Hill Gang ‘Rapper’s Delight’ lyric reference> but using animals, kids and “Free” is kind of a cheap advertising trick.

 

That’s my gripe.

 

The actual animals aren’t really relevant to what Residence Inn actually stands for … therefore … they must only be using the animals as cheap trick to create an ‘entertaining ad to increase awareness’ <and get noticed by us idiot TV watchers>.

 

Nicely done ads though.

the futurist

July 11th, 2012

This is going to discuss a book called The Futurist <by a guy named Ottmer>. But before I discuss the book … this overall topic is one of my favorites … ahhhhhhhhhhhh … let me clarify … one of my favorite cynical topics … the fact that there are these bullshit slinging presenters and trend watchers wannabes who make an amazing living off of sound bite thoughts.

Do I begrudge them the ability to find a sound bite? Nope.

What I do have a grudge against is that I, and many other people, then have to invest an inordinate amount of energy explaining to people that the sound bite is just that … a sound bite … a simplistic meaningless irrelevant concept in the real world.

And then I found a book with someone who apparently has the same cynical attitude with regard to these ‘trend spotters.’

<note: I wish I had written this book>

So.

I have a stack of books next to my bed which invariably has some books that have been waiting a while to be read. I just finished The Futurist. In case you don’t want to read this well written quasi-fun, quasi-cynical fictional look at the “buzz creator” future trends world, here is nutshell look at these pop-culture bullshit artists using the opening speech at the Futureworld conference (a fictional conference) by JP Yates (a fictional person/futurist) in the book:

I realized this morning over breakfast that I’ve spent a good portion of my life seeking the approval of people I can’t stand.  Including myself.

The truth is, I know nothing. Understand nothing.

I try. I am not lazy. But the more I try to understand something the more intertwined and complex it seems. The more I realize I am out of the proverbial loop. The literal loop. The existential loop. The more I think of things the more I question whether anyone is properly looped. In fact, I challenge the very existence of the loop, proverbial, literal or metaphorical. So this is a fundamental problem, being out of a loop that I don’t even believe in.

Most books or movies or creation myths have a hero who knows all there is to know about at least one thing. And he uses that gift to overcome an obvious and blatant evil adversary. He has insider knowledge. Special gifts. Ingenious ways of getting to the core of things. The answer. The solution. The truth. He knows what’s right and wrong. He knows what’s next. And he knows what to do about it.

I don’t.

I don’t understand the present let alone the fucking future.

Yet we claim to understand. Pretend to. Some actually believe it, that they do know. You know the people. The ones who talk about such things with such cocksure passion that you think, shit, maybe they do know, maybe they really do. They speak in absolutes. Blacks and whites. They speak with soothing partisan simplicity. They speak with their hands and use Powerpoint like a sword. They quote people you ought to know more about. They work on a privileged higher plane and posit their views with a condescending subterranean confidence, convincing you not to worry, that forces are at work on other levels, levels that simple folks like us cannot even begin to fathom, so it’s best not to worry your pretty little head about it and trust them, the experts, that this is the way it is. And the way it will be.

People get rich and powerful operating this way, perpetuating the myth of the uber level, the exclusive loop. Dispensing their wisdom and opinions and edicts to the masses.  Breaking down the conflicting moral, political and economic issues of 52 billion people into a binary proposition. Yes or no. War or peace. Good or bad. With us or against us. Ginger or Mary Ann.

Presidents work on this level. And dictators. Talk show hosts. Professional wrestlers. Actresses on the steps of the capitol. Conservatives. Liberals. The members of VFW Post #442. CEOs. Madison Avenue. Wall street.  Sesame Street.

They’re all in the loop. All working on another level.

I’m not.

I don’t believe in the scared loop or the secret level.

In fact, I think the more people claim to absolutely know, the more clueless and insecure thery absolutely are.  Of course, I can’t be sure of this.

Which brings me to us. And to me. Who do we think we are?  Who did I think I was?

How can I call myself a futurist when I missed the most cataclysmic event of our time? How can I predict tomorrow when the world is on fire today?

How did I see reality TV coming but miss this?

And let’s be honest: we all did.

We make all these pronouncements but none of us ever goes back to check on their accuracy. Shit, if the people in this room were right just 1percent of the time, we’d all be telecommuting from Tahiti, eating dinner in a pill form, and having literal sex with our virtual selves. But if you talk shit long enough, sooner or later you may actually be right, and if by some fluke that is the case, watch out, because any successful prediction is always followed by the cannibalistic scramble for credit – the blood grab to brand an original thought as your own.

We all want to be the first to be there to identify a “click moment”, but we live in a world that may never click again.

We’re great at telling people the future they need to buy into instead of the present they should be making the most of.

And what’s hilarious is that we all believe it. That we are geniuses. That we are all responsible for and deserving of our wealth. More deserving of the privileged life than, say, a teacher or a mason. A cleric or a hot dog vendor. Despite the fact that 99% of us did not create our good fortune. The markets did. Or luck. Or heredity.

I believed it.

But not anymore.

You see, we may be able to identify cool, but we can never invent it. Cool is never manufactured. You never try to be cool. It happens.

Same goes for goodness. And truth.

And the only truth I know …is that I know nothing. And even though you may dress the part – the missoni scarves, the yellow jumpsuits, the tiny glasses, the all-whites, the all-blacks, the Nehru’s, the sandals, the glittering gadgets – none of you know anything either. Sorry about that.

We are not innovators.  We are fucking abominations.

To paraphrase someone smarter than me, who still knows nothing, the philosophical task of our age is for each of us to decide what it means to be a successful human being.

I don’t know the answer to that, but I would like to find out.

In the meantime, I know absolutely zilch.

I am the founding father of the Coalition of Clueless.

Ok.

“We are not innovators, we are fucking abominations.” <note to everyone: awesome>

Cynical? Sure.

Have I felt this listening, or reading, to some of the popular trend spotter ‘gurus’? You betcha.

Do I wish I had written this? Absofuckinglutely.

Ok. The book.

It is the kind of book that may remind you of Joseph Heller (Good as Gold and maybe a business version of Catch-22).

By the way … a ‘futurist’ is one of those nifty bullshit words business nowadays uses for those pop psychologists who identify trends and recognizers of ‘future cool.’

And I also loved the book because it permitted me a glimpse into why I could have never been a successful ‘futurist’ … well … beyond the fact I suck at identifying meaningful trends of course … and that is futurists need to be blindingly optimistic with regard to prosperity … and I would be screwed because I am too pragmatic.

That said. If you are a cynical pragmatist like me and you care about this topic you will love this book.

Each chapter has a paragraph summary of former achievements of the protagonist/Futurist.

“He once spoke before the graduates of a Bible college in Virginia about the future of God and one week later delivered the keynote address to the Adult Video Distributors Conference in Vegas about the future of porn, and received standing ovations at both.”

<awesome … and real life practical truth>

Another. The Futurist as described by one analysis in the book:

“He used to believe that things were getting better. He thought that science had a heart and that progress had a conscience. Then came doubts, followed by questions and alarming insights. Soon this high-profile, big-ticket trend prognosticator was prophesying doom and gloom.

He began to criticize the present, and he warned of a more damaged tomorrow if we refused to change. He gave heads-ups and watch-outs, supported by facts and scientifically validated forecasts and cautionary tales. But this kind of outlook left his audiences feeling troubled, which was not the desired effect. It was suggested that he might want to put a bit more of a smile back on his work. So he switched gears and began telling those audiences what they wanted to hear.”

That is a truth.

I guarantee it. Seth Godin. Faith Popcorn. Tipping Point guy.  First of all they are not sharing unique ideas … they are simply <mostly … just to give some ideas the benefit of the doubt> taking other people’s ideas … or thoughts … or portions/fragments of thoughts … and re-presenting them not only with gusto but also in a slightly different sound bite <sic: bullshit> way to capture the interest of whomever they are writing to and for.

a stern light

July 11th, 2012

This is a follow up thought to the Futurist. A follow up maybe because this has to do with the present … and learning from the past.

“if men could learn from history what lessons it might teach us! But passion and party blind our eyes, and the light which experience gives is a lantern on the stern, which only shines on the waves behind us!” – Samuel Taylor Coleridge (1831)

So often in our desire to ‘figure out’ today we stand upon steps built upon hopes of tomorrow. Our lessons from history to often shine upon the waves behind us instead of maybe lighting our way. It is unfortunate. Because while I not only believe we can learn from the past I also believe that much of what happens is a derivative of past actions <if you look hard enough>.

Well. That is certainly a valid thought but there is  more important thought with regard to the present.

And I think Max Dublin says this thought the best:

“It is myopic and evasive to forget that most questions that can be posed about the future can be more meaningfully and forcefully be posed about the present.  If we only used the knowledge we now have, and used it only for the good, we could have heaven on earth, without one further innovation or discovery, and thereby create a better world than any of our false prophets are capable of envisioning. It is not a matter of ingenuity but of character, and it is the key to any and all possible futures. ” – Max Dublin

Max is correct.

Oftentimes we are so unhappy, or possibly so fearful, of what is … we invest a shitload of energy seeking and sinking ourselves into what could be <notice I didn’t say ‘what will be’>.  It is natural. If today doesn’t look that good inevitably we cast a hopeful eye to the horizon. Heck. I know I do.

But.

What if.

What if we used all the energy and knowledge we currently have to try and solve what would be good for today … whew … I bet we could create a pretty kick ass world for everyone. Today … and, well, tomorrow.

Yeah .. yeah .. yeah. Maybe we wouldn’t have the 15th version of the i-phone or a new even lighter creamier but less caloric mint double chocolate chip ice cream but maybe we would have less poverty or less obesity or less of something bad that needs to be solved.

I sometimes believe in our capitalistic fear of being left behind we ignore what is.

I imagine it is a real fear that one stops thinking about the future and others invest in the future and they get it wrong and get passed by … and I imagine all businesses have this fear.

But.

Here is a truth.

We do not need a 15th version of the i-phone.

We do not need a new improved lower caloric ice cream.

We do not need a lot of the new innovations that are constantly thrown upon us.

Ok. Do we ‘want’ … or maybe ‘like’ the new innovations? Sure. We are human.

But do we ‘need’?

C’mon. Be serious. Of course not.

A Max truth <which I agree with>.

It is not a matter of ingenuity … it is a matter of character. And, as usual, character is the key to all possible futures <not making money>.

Yeah. I know. This is a pipe dream in the world of business.  A world where “creating a sustainable world” is simply a bolt on to “how much money can I make” in the corporate world.

But <this is a huge but>.

What if some company invested all their innovation money in not coming up with a new widget but rather  coming up with a better way to use what we have?

I know.

Heresy.

Maybe myopic and evasive <as Max says>.

Oh. Maybe it is just not what Futurists want to hear.

Oh well.

It is a great quote. A smart quote. And, more importantly, a great thought. It’s the kind of thought someone in a position that matters should be thinking.

unfortunate timing affects credibility

June 16th, 2012

So.

Using a paid spokesperson is tricky. You can not be stupid about it <that is a big deal … because companies get stupid when they pull out their wallets to pay for some spokespeople> … you can even find someone who fits well … and even find someone who will not embarrass you <the company, the brand, the product> and then … well … some unfortunate timing occurs.

An example.

Toyota just featured Grace Potter for one of their smaller more economical models. She is from Vermont. She seems practical and down to earth and when you saw her with the Toyota it really wasn’t a stretch to believe it. And I thought it was a good choice.

And Toyota, being a savvy marketer, placed the television advertisement in the new VH1 Storytellers featuring Grace Potter and the Nocturnals. That was a good choice. Ok. Actually awesome use of compatible editorial environment.

Oh. Oops. Here is the unfortunate timing … during the storyteller portion of the show Grace had just finished a delightful story about how she took off in her car for 4 or 5 days driving back roads trying to unlock writer’s block. Unfortunately she said “I took my car … a Fiat … and just drove.”

Is it a big deal? Heck. I am probably one of a dozen people who noticed it <consciously at least>. There are probably a few more who subconsciously knew something was wrong and it just felt like a disconnect for some reason. But. Here is the deal. If you are gonna pay the bucks to have a paid spokesperson you gotta have some of the details under control … or … well … its just not worth paying the bucks.

Was it unfortunate? Yup. Was it avoidable? Yup. Was it bad for credibility? Yup.

spinal tap marketing

April 23rd, 2012

Ok.

This is about the senseless marketing inflation that is becoming prevalent in the marketing world and I am going to use the movie Spinal Tap to show how bad it is.

Just in case you don’t remember the movie Spinal Tap, or the moment I am going to reference, here it is:

“Our speakers no longer just go to ten … they go to 11! Well, it’s one louder, isn’t it? It’s not 10. You see, most blokes, you know, will be playing at 10. You’re on 10 here, all the way up, all the way up, all the way up, you’re on 10 on your guitar. Where can you go from there? Where?”

<Nigel Tufnel, explaining why his amp goes up to 11>

Here’s the deal. Look around at some marketing these days. If you are kind you will call it ‘value inflation’ … if you aren’t kind it is puffery.

And good ole The Economist actually gave me some great fodder in a recent edition (so I am going to steal some of their words shamelessly).

Their article showcased an aspect of how marketing is inflating everything.

Marketing inflation?

-          Take the grossly underreported problem of “size inflation”, where clothes of any particular labelled size have steadily expanded over time. Estimates by The Economist suggest that the average British size 14 pair of women’s trousers is now more than four inches wider at the waist than it was in the 1970s. In other words, today’s size 14 is really what used to be labelled a size 18; a size 10 is really a size 14. (American sizing is different, but the trend is largely the same.) Fashion firms seem to think that women are more likely to spend if they can happily squeeze into a smaller label size.

-          Inflation is also distorting the travel business. A five-star hotel used to mean the ultimate in luxury, but now six- and seven-star resorts are popping up as new hotels award themselves inflated ratings as a marketing tool. “Deluxe” rooms have been devalued, too: many hotels no longer have “standard” rooms, but instead offer a choice of “deluxe” (the new standard), “luxury”, “superior luxury” or “grand superior luxury”. Likewise, most airlines no longer talk about “economy” class. British Airways instead offers World Traveller; Air France has Voyageur. Sardine class would be more honest. The value of frequent-flyer miles is also being eroded by inflation: it is increasingly hard to book “free” flights; they cost more miles, and redemption fees have increased. This was inevitable: airlines have been issuing so many miles (for spending on the ground as well as in the air) that the total stock is worth more than all the dollar notes and coins in circulation.

-          Food-portion inflation has also made it harder to fight the flab. Pizzas now come in regular, large and very large. Starbucks coffees are Tall, Grande, Venti or (soon) Trenta. “Small” seems to be a forbidden word.

I believe this shameless hyperbole has become a plague in marketing. It is puffery at its worst.

And it is shameful for 2, among many, reasons:

-          It inspires confusion.

Confusion in that the value equation has been disrupted. Marketers have assumed we will value a ‘7 star’ over a ‘5 star’ because … well … it has more stars. Instead marketers have simply devalued an individual star to a point people are so confused they simply assess value on their own. Oh. And by doing THAT people will inevitably focus on the wrong things (commodity attributes & price). Confusion is bad in marketing.

-          In inspires distrust.

Because in the act of building false value <under the guise of differentiation> we are discrediting what we actually do. Inevitably this makes people basically lose trust in what we say. With the lack of trust marketers have no value to people … leading to simply ignoring or tuning out any messaging. Oh. And if marketers have no value then why have them? Regardless. No one is clear what is the ‘truth.’ And when that happens they disregard what is being said and simply ignore it. And ignore it for what it really is <as a truth> hyperbole.

Oh.

And it is shameful because it is lazy. Yes. Lazy. I fully admit that it is significantly harder to discern what is really true in today’s world. But that is no excuse for marketers. In fact rather than try to take the ‘easy road’ <albeit the road with some horrible long term repercussions> marketers should be focusing on the more difficult road – truth.

Anyway. Back to the spinal tap marketing issue. The Economist suggests it is a form of inflation.

I am less kind.

It is hyperbole. And the worst kind. Because we are trying to skew what people think by stretching the truth <is that lying?>.

Lying sounds harsh but what else do we call it when we ‘create’ differentiation.

I fully understand that marketers need to respond to the market in order to help ‘sell their stuff.’ In this case this bad marketing behavior was exhibited in response to a couple of trends as identified by trendwatching – Mass Class and its opposite trend Massclusivity.

Increasing general prosperity spawned millions of new consumers interested in copying the tastes and preferences of the ‘rich & famous.’ This meant that manufacturers jumped on the enormous economies of scale as represented by this new mass of consumers by imitating the best of the best with lower cost alternatives. In some cases they imitated well. in other cases they simply imitated … with a lesser product. Regardless of their true quality, or non-quality, they imitated. And in doing so ultimately lowered the value of that which actually deserved the value.

This trend also spawned the next level called Massclusivity. Offering a level of privilege or status to the masses. Unfortunately it most likely offered neither privilege nor status to the traditional old style upper middle class.

So. In order to try and solve the problem marketers started ‘creating value’ in these absurd ways. The real problem? The imitators did it as well as the ‘real quality value’ providers. The imitators, in their falseness, blurred value.

It is too late but one would have wished that marketers would have been strong enough to stand up to the false imitators and stopped the problem before it began. But I imagine that means the marketing ‘hacks’ would have left money on the table and missed out on their opportunity for personal prosperity.

Oh well.

Marty DiBergi: David St. Hubbins… I must admit I’ve never heard anybody with that name.
David St. Hubbins: It’s an unusual name, well, he was an unusual saint, he’s not a very well known saint.
Marty DiBergi: Oh, there actually is, uh… there was a Saint Hubbins?
David St. Hubbins: That’s right, yes.
Marty DiBergi: What was he the saint of?
David St. Hubbins: He was the patron saint of quality footwear.

An entirely different level is of absurdity is that marketers also create spokespeople for random products & services hoping that they embody some type of credibility. In the attempt at borrowed interest the marketer simply gains a lack of believability. Ok. Good intentions … bad result.

Hopefully it never becomes as absurd as a ‘patron saint of quality footwear.’

And, yes, even beyond the spokespeople endorsers … it all becomes absurd at some point.

And in its absurdity it actually devalues everything it come in contact with <the second most disturbing would be the devaluing of trust>.  The foremost disturbing is that it distorts behavior because so many people are confused they aren’t sure what is actually the best thing to do <because inflating thru marketing suggest there is no real ‘best’ alternative>.

I imagine to be fair to those in marketing it appears this senseless inflation is prevalent throughout society.

There is grade inflation, the tendency for comparable academic performance to be awarded higher grades over time. In Britain the proportion of A-level students given “A” grades has risen from 9% to 27% over the past 25 years. Yet other tests find that children are no cleverer than they were. A study by Durham University concluded that an A grade today is the equivalent of a C in the 1980s. In American universities almost 45% of graduates now get the top grade, compared with 15% in 1960. Grade inflation makes students feel better about themselves, but because the highest grade is fixed, it also causes grade compression, which distorts relative prices. This is unfair to the brightest, whose grades are devalued against those of average students. It also makes it harder for employers to identify the best applicants.

There is job title inflation, where a fancier-sounding title is cheaper than a pay raise. Companies now have an excess of chiefs and directors. Job title inflation has economic costs if it makes it more difficult to assess proper compensation for skills.

Anyway.

Now that I have been fair to marketing people I will suggest it is no excuse.

I have already mentioned the professional laziness.

But, the bigger issue is that marketing, in many ways, can influence society and attitudes and ultimately behavior.

Marketing can lead.

Marketing has in fact a responsibility to lead society. Inflation is ultimately a value equation. If marketing establishes non-absurd value equations attitudes are established.

I know it seems absurd that I wrote a serious piece about marketing using Spinal Tap.

But it moves beyond absurdity with me when I realize I can write a serious piece on marketing using Spinal Tap as an example.

It disturbs me.

Which leads me to the close:

“It does disturb me, but I rise above it. I’m a professional” – Nigel

Trying to inflate value simply means we devalue what really is.

And if marketing does it ultimately it establishes a devalued benchmark. Yeah … yeah … yeah … some smartass is going to suggest that marketing is establishing a ‘new value economy.’

Baloney.

It is simply devaluing the existing one.

Success often resides somewhere in the past

February 21st, 2011

This is about reimaging or revitalizing companies and brands.  Trendwatching.com calls it Dormanidise but without the fancy name it is simply about resurrecting dormant attributes in a company.

Yes. Dormandise is an official consumer trend (as identified by trendwatching but by other names in other trend identifiers). And at its core Dormandise is exactly like other real trends (not fads) … it is about relevance.  Or maybe better said ‘finding relevance.’

The relevance in this case is about resurrecting dormant attributes in an existing company/brand that still have some appeal (just need to be dusted off and shined up a bit).

While this is something I love professionally the people at trendwatching have actually identified it as a global trend and given it a nifty catchy name – ‘Dormandise.’

I simply call it being good at resurrecting things that are dormant in the collective consumer conscience.

Yes.

This is about believing that success often resides somewhere in the past.

This is all about something old and something new (and being relevant in the marketplace).

Oh.  And it’s not really that easy (or maybe better said it is easy to do this badly). The challenge to resurrect something old with reverence and apply it with relevance.
And this whole idea is what floats my strategy thinking boat. Well.  Actually (to be honest) this is easy for me.   (And it helps ASO has a process like Youniverse and Brand Enlightenment) which actually makes it even easier).

Maybe more importantly than I like doing this is that I also believe it is something a boatload of companies, brands, products or services need help with.

Sales are flagging and I am an old brand/company and how do I look new?!?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.  Sound familiar?

Most of the time it because the brand has simply lost relevance in consumers’ minds (it has nothing to do with being cool or uncool).

Maybe the best example I can think of is Adidas in the United States.

Huge popular brand in US years ago. Dropped off the face of the earth in the American consciousness (especially as Nike and Reebok stepped up).  Then someone stepped in and made them relevant again (part old school positioning and part ‘new relevant’ status).

Smart.

VW?  Did the same.

Oh.

Maybe the second best.

IBM.

Whew. Someone really stepped up to the plate on this one. Someone fought the battle that “big blue ain’t that bad that we should throw it under the bus” (and I bet that was a tough discussion) and then threw in some nice human characteristics (some tongue in cheek relevant humor) and all of a sudden IBM (which had one foot in the grave perceptionwise) became relevant all over again.  They didn’t throw away all their old characteristics (in fact they kind of suggested that an aspect of their oldness was good) and simply started adding on relevant “todaylike” characteristics.

(note: I have a laundry list of brands/companies that I personally have worked on)

But please note.

The failure list is extensive. Resurrecting, or renovating, a brand to revitalize it in the marketplace and make it relevant again is a tricky path.

It isn’t easy.

Because it is just easy to look old.  Or worse … look old trying to be cool (think the middle aged crisis guy who is almost laughably sad to look at).

Please notice.

This trend is about companies that have been in business 25 years or more (so we are talking about companies who have some heritage).

Dormandise is all about diving into a company’s history and retrieving as many discontinued attributes and perceptions, and maybe even a product or two (or a forgotten/overlooked brand) and revitalize them.

I often find that people spend so much time trying to find something “new” and “revolutional” and they overlook something older that just needs to be pulled off the shelf and shined up a bit.
Whatever the reason for the brand fading away or disappearing or losing its relevance (blame mergers, globalization, mismanagement, stagnant thinking, poor strategic repositioning, or whatever), Dormandise represents a real value.  Imagine the gazillions you could save by not having to create instant name recognition amongst tens of millions of skeptical twenty, thirty or forty-somethings.

Conveniently, with a shaky economy, joblessness up, and insecurity being a constant in today’s consumer world, and with most corporations shy away from spending money on massive new brand and product introductions anyway consumers are waxing nostalgic for long-gone better days. All of these represent a great opportunity for a company with some heritage.
Now. About Dormandise.

Some people may call this re-imaging (I know I have in the past).

And re-imaging is an appropriate term because reimaging is NOT about re-inventing an organization but rather assembling characteristics or attributes and then repackaging them, or highlighting something, to make people look at the organization in a different way.

The simple truth is that successful re-imaging typically resides in the past. Gathering up characteristics that made that company successful in the past and simply reminding the internal company and the external constituents all the reasons why that organization was “liked” in the first place.

Another truth is that sometimes re-imaging is simply a process of “clarity”, i.e., insuring that people clearly understand what the organization does, believes and stands for. This may seem simplistic or irrelevant but I often find, particularly with B2B focused, organizations focus so much on customer service and features & benefits to differentiate themselves they have lost sight of the value of a higher order positioning in creating value and distinctness.

So.

In the end re-imaging doesn’t mean new perceptions cannot be ‘attached’ to existing attributes it simply means that it is:

(1) Easier if the desired image/identity is leveraged from something existing (think heritage again), and

(2) More believable to internal & external audiences if as many existing perceptions/attitudes are utilized as possible (so old is good here too).

This means someone who takes on this challenge has to have:

-          a core competency of reimaging brands and creating a consumer attitudinal (leading to behavioral) change

-          a process that works best with companies who have a larger existing base of perceptions & attitudes from which to draw upon (because some agencies just have processes that focus on ‘what will be’ and consumer trends and trying to take an educated fortune teller recommendation)

Yes. It takes a disciplined process (or let’s say it helps a lot) which effectively recognizes and identifies dormant-like meaningful characteristics.  And it also takes people who are in tune to uncovering insights using the findings (because many people just focus on the new shiny objects). And, lastly, success is dependent upon knowing how to use those insights to make the brand relevant and increase sales.  Candidly not every ad agency has all three of these things.  And this is kind of the formula for success with this trend.

But.

Two thoughts to end the business side of this article.

1.       People often forget that success often resides somewhere in your past (if you look hard enough). It is all about pushing off from some past strength and leaping forward in a relevant way. Anyone who doesn’t want to looks backwards at all (the infamous “that information is dated” comment) will not understand or benefit from this trend.

2.        I love this trend. I love this strategic approach. It’s like putting a puzzle together using a lot of existing pieces but at the end having it look slightly different than it did when it was put together previously.  It is simply showing people what was already there but helping them look at it differently. Plus (frankly).   It is always easier to edit then create.

So.  Find someone to dormandise.  It’s fun.  And it can create some amazing sales results.

Next.

Some life stuff as I think about “success often resides in the past.”

I don’t mean this as living in the past or focusing on regrets or anything like that. What I mean is that sometimes ignoring your past is silly.  Doesn’t mean it is easy to look back and grab onto something but often it is good to look back and ‘pull something off the shelf and dust it off and shine it up a bit.’ Could it be a regret you have an opportunity to ‘un-regret’? Is it a success you had that you have forgotten or overlooked as ‘something that was then but not important now’? Is it something you tried & failed at and decided to not try again for fear of failing again. It could be anything. And it could be something that you honestly have forgotten about as ‘today’ has overtaken your life and you just try and keep your head above water.

Well. Just like I pointed out in the business section just keeping your head above water often means treading water.  Which is tiring and, frankly, just marking time before you eventually drown. Yeah. Its sink or swim.  So I guess the point here on this is if you feel like you are treading water in your life and you want to ‘revitalize’ your life maybe take a minute or two and look back. Sometimes the way forward begins by taking something from your past and dusting it off.

Maybe it sounds strange but I think we all re-image ourselves on occasion.  Or we want to.  Or we try to. And it is okay to do it.  But remember … re-imaging means changing some things.  But maybe change doesn’t mean throwing everything away but rather reusing some things from the past in a different way – using them with knowldge you didn’t have then.

Regardless. Dormandising is a good trend for everyone to think about.

Enlightened Conflict