I believe the amount of time people spend on developing or thinking of taglines is nuts. Yes. They are important but in the scheme of things I would envision if you are analyzing your time (or people’s time in general) by billable hour, the amount of time invested in this type of thing is … well … not a good investment.
Second.
Here is why I think the time invested is out of whack. In general, here are the guidelines for developing a brand line.
If the company/brand name is more aspirational/inspirational, or less descriptive, like Nike’s company name, err on the side of aiming for a more descriptive tagline telling people what the company offers or does (like Nike’s original line of “superior performance athletic shoes”).
If the company/brand name is more descriptive of the product/service that is being offered then the tagline can assume a more aspirational feel & direction.
The exception: when a company has achieved such a strong awareness that it has achieved a brand status, meaning that people know what the company actually does/offers, a tagline can take on more of an aspirational aspect (use Nike as an example when it shifted to “Just do IT” after they had attained 90+% awareness).
Third.
The main rule of the road for descriptor/tagline development:
When the logo/name of company and tagline are stand-alone, make sure people can tell you exactly what that company does or offers. In other words, don’t be tricky or creative and lose an opportunity to be clear about who and what you are. And this is REALLY important when you come out of the starting blocks. Look. You can always change later. Upfront be clear. Making people guess (and you don’t have enough money to answer their guessing) is a silly investment.
Why? Anything other than meeting that main rule translates into having to invest a lot of money, and time effort, to educate people.
There you go.
All these “inspirational taglines” and such are kinda silly.
Do other things to inspire people.
Plus. I am also a believer that a tagline can change. Almost as often as you would like (as long as it stays in the same sphere of character).
I love writing about the biathlon because no one else does (and I am slightly fascinated by this whole skiing and shooting thing).
So. In the Women’s Biathlon Sprint event Slovakia’s Anastazia Kuzmina won with a score of “19:55.6”. Once again the scoring is one of those things that take a guidebook. Speed of skiing and penalties for misses. Anyway. It’s like 7 kilometers of skiing or something like that. And then they shoot at this miniature target of Osama bin Laden all with a heart rate of over 170 or something like that (apparently it is an incorrect belief that these shooters slow their heart rate to level the sighting). Just to give you some perspective it’s like maybe jumping rope for 15 straight minutes or doing a hundred straight jumping jacks a fast as you can and then sitting down with a pencil and writing all your valentine’s day cards (in a way someone can actually read them). Amazing stuff.
The guns are wacky looking but they do seem kind of lethal (so you don’t see a lot of spectators hanging out behind the targets).
And in the Men’s Biathlon Sprint event. (And I am still a little unclear how this merits a “sprint” heading .. see Summer Olympics hundred yard dash as example of confusion). Anyway. The top three were:
France. Vincent Jay
Norway. Emil Hegle Svendsen
Croatia. Jakov Fak
Never heard of them (but have heard of the countries). I just wanted to note the winners. I figured this may be the only time their names appear on our radar. Oh. Yeah, their fans (who I assume are mostly relatives or people who subscribe to Guns & Ammo), they are nuts. Think cowbells and big funny hats and horns. I am just not sure guys who ski and shoot rifles for a living are funny hat/cowbell spanking type of guys but, hey, whatever floats your boat. Maybe the tickets were for free. I went to a fencing event at the Atlanta Olympics because I had free tickets (but I left my cowbell at home … just blew a dog whistle every time someone did something great).
This whole mogul downhill (going downhill with lots of bumps and a couple of jumps) skiing thing.
Women’s version. Ok. Men’s version. I don’t care. My knees and lower back just start hurting every time I watch these contestants bounce their way down the hill. Their knees pump furiously as they pound down the course. Their runs are a brilliant mix of speed and technical skiing with daring back flips and “helicopter spins” and other amazing feats that seem to defy gravity. Who thought this crap up? Awesome.
Women’s ice hockey
The Canadian women’s hockey team, a two-time defending Olympic gold medalist, didn’t disappoint. The Canadians cranked out an 18-0 rout of Slovakia (exciting the 16,000 Canadian fans eager cheer to keep warm and disappointing the 496 Slovakian fans – who cheered anyway to keep warm). C’mon. 18 to zilch? And I thought Slovakia had ice rinks. Oh well. They would beat the crap out of Canada in a “bryndzove halusky” (small dumplings made of potato dough with sheep cheese and topped with scrambled bacon) cooking contest. I know that for sure.
This speed skating thing.
Yikes. First the solo stuff. Who decided to put that on television exclusively? 20 some laps of two guys skating around a really small rink with one hand tied behind their back (ok. that’s what it looked like). And then there is the group speed skating thing. In the huge wipeout fortunately the Koreans weren’t injured with those razor sharp blades flying in their pileup (thank god they weren’t North Koreans or some nukes may have been dropped). Anyway. This group speed skating is kind of like Indy car racing where the cars are inches apart and you cannot really fathom how they can stay so close to each other without hitting each other. But, it was kind of amazing to see the skaters in that one race self destruct at what would have been a 1-2-3 finish for them and allow the Americans to take the 2-3 positions in the race. These races often have a little bit of roller derby flavor. But on really big skates. And with funky colored outfits. I still admit I don’t really get it and it seems a little boring to me.
Cross country skiing.
Awesome. Today a really cute 22 year old Swede girl unexpectedly won her cross country event and puked after crossing the finish line (she still had a Crest bright big smile afterwards). The Polish woman, the favorite, collapses in fatigue maybe a minute from the finish (so that’s collapsing after maybe 23 minutes of cross country skiing). I need to watch more of this. Put it on prime time I say.
Oh. And how cool is it your coach (or I assume it is a coach and not some random spectator hovering at the side of the track) is screaming at the top of their lungs (and because it is in Swedish or Russian or Croatian I have no clue what they are saying) at the skier as they ski by. I assume they are saying something like “you are a lardass and an embarrassment to the queen (or whatever monarch is appropriate) and may your ancestors be hamsters if you don’t win a medal.” But the screaming person sludging their way through the snow beside the track is awesome. I would go if I could do that.
I have been slamming on our government in some of my posts lately.
It is probably more a sign of frustration than anything to do with democracy (because I am a huge democracy fan).
So.
I will try and back off by offering them a couple of thoughts (should any of them deign to read my little post) and an idea to discuss.
1. Please remember our forefathers:
“I am not a Virginian, but an American.”
Said in speech in the first Continental Congress, 1774, by Patrick Henry.
You will see my idea (a proposed solution) below but at minimum if they could remember that while representing local constituents they are Americans. And making choices for the good of America not just locally (and sometimes what is not good for local may be good for “the whole”). We need to remember Henry is known for his “Give me Liberty, or give me Death!” speech.
He is remembered as one of the most influential, radical advocates of the American Revolution and republicanism, especially in his denunciations of corruption in government officials and his defense of historic rights.
2. Take a field trip to the Lincoln Memorial:
While they all probably walk by the memorial every day, maybe there should be an organized field trip so they can all take a moment and reflect. They can use the time to reflect on a time when the country was divided and Americans were killing Americans. And what it took to lead at that time and reconnect a divided nation.
We aren’t killing each other (at least only figuratively at the moment) but divisiveness is running rampant. And they are feeding the divisiveness. We elect them to lead us not just to follow us (or what we say). They should stand in the shadow of the memorial to one of our greatest leaders and remind themselves of that.
When in DC I have to admit that when standing in front of the Lincoln Memorial I feel the enormity of leadership responsibility as well as the greatness of America. The House Representatives and Senate members could use a good dose of that feeling.
So.
Here is the idea.
I don’t really like politics or pay much attention to it. Because I tend to be straightforward and logical and politics is anything but straightforward and logical.
Ok.
I have a random, completely non-doable solution (which reminds us that unreasonable ideas are often reasonable solutions to problems):
I am willing to let everyone currently in office serve an additional term with no election.
Just once.
They can act and vote as “Americans” without fear of “oh. I won’t get reelected if I do what I believe is the right thing to do”.
This idea has 2 obvious benefits:
Their decisions have some time to actually come to fruition to show some valid proof versus getting slammed solely for a voting record.
The country gets to save all that money and time that gets invested in trying to prove why you should vote for “X” politician.
I used to coach kids baseball and football when I could still actually play some (I liked teaching the mechanics and playing stuff). Nowadays there is this kind of wacky thing going on where kids, learning to play, can’t lose. Sometimes they don’t even keep score. They play games with a tee ball where you can swing as often as you want until you hit it.
I am sure there are dozens of psychology (or psychiatry … I can never keep ‘em straight) papers suggesting that in some way not losing encourages kids to keep playing or feel better about themselves or something.
Ok. Here the deal. In games. In school. In whatever. Someone wins and someone loses. I won’t list all those situations again but in addition to winning and losing, there are some people smarter than you, some less smart, some will be better at things than you and some who don’t do some things as well as you. Sorry folks. That would be called Life.
Somewhere along the way we seemed to have lost sight of the issue.
It isn’t about winning or losing.
It is all about how you handle winning or losing. That is the lesson we should be teaching kids (and there are a boatload of adults who could probably use the lesson too).
So now we are heading down a path where the initial lesson we are teaching a generation is that winning or losing doesn’t matter. And I don’t care which side of that equation you take…each side matters.
Yes. It matters if you win.
And, yes, it matters if you lose.
If you don’t think that, then you don’t learn from each time. It isn’t that losing is bad (although winning feels better), it is that losing should show you something. Can I improve? Should I invest time improving? Is it that maybe there are too many others better than I am at this particular thing?
Winning is the exact same thing. But winning in childhood is tricky and addictive. Winning can fool you into believing different things about yourself and your abilities. But that is a lesson also.
But none of that really matters because we are bringing up a generation where we are missing the opportunity to teach kids that. Why? Because no one is frickin’ winning or losing. We are building a generation of nonwinners where everyone is truly losing in the end.
(a male view of the Valentine’s situation having also accumulated a zillion research data points over multiple beer events discussing everything but Valentine’s Day)
All this talk about Valentine’s Day being created by Hallmark, the myth behind St. Valentine … a massacre for god’s sake.
Confusing.
Well … maybe confusing to some but I have put some strategic thought to this whole concept.
Because the thought behind it is really very simple.
Basically we men are idiots <that is the theorem underpinning>.
Therefore Valentine’s Day plays an important role in a “stimulus-response” type model for men.
The day is a valuable stimulus to stop us from thinking solely with our dumb stick and with some random portion of our brain that isn’t being used for sports, work, alcohol, oogling <not ogling … there is a difference>, mindless daydreaming or sleeping.
Below you will see a diagram that outlines how we think without Valentine’s day and then with Valentine’s day.
(click on the image for a larger, somewhat more legible version)
As you see.
Valentine’s Day is not something created by Hallmark.
Nor is it stupid.
It is an important event with a use benefiting men <kind of like the Super Bowl and March Madness but not as important>.
Strategically Valentine’s Day makes sense to the existence of men <and possibly romance but in a non linear way>.
“… a bad idea is a bad idea and will never be a good idea no matter how well you dress it up.”
—
Bruce McTague
===
So.
Comcast, perhaps having just seen their 100th consecutive consumer research study showcasing their lack of customer service (Hey. All cable companies are in this boat. So it’s not just them) and massive customer dissatisfaction scores, had an inspiration (some may call it a brain cramp) and announced that it plans to change the name of its cable TV, Internet and phone services to XFinity.
Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
Okay.
Comcast EVP, operations David Watson tells us the brilliance behind this re-branding maneuver:
“XFINITY represents the future of our company and it’s a promise to customers that we’ll keep innovating. When we launch XFINITY in a market, we’ll rebrand our products: XFINITY TV, XFINITY Voice and XFINITY Internet (our company, of course, remains Comcast). This transition is already well underway across the country. [On February 12], XFINITY will roll out in 11 markets including: Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington D.C., Chicago, Portland, Seattle, Hartford, Augusta, Chattanooga, parts of the Bay Area and San Francisco, with more markets to come later this year.”
This is the kind of crap that makes everyday consumers crazy and drives those of us in the marketing world to drink heavily <Ok … more heavily then we may normally do>.
Dear David at Comcast,
I don’t want you to promise me you will keep innovating I would like you to promise me you will show up at 10 when you say you will fix my TV so I can watch Oprah.
Sincerely,
XCustomer.
I have the utmost respect for Jeff Goodby and Goodby Silverstein (Comcast’s ad agency) but this is kind of nuts. I guess I can take some solace in that a Comcast representative confirmed that this is actually a Goodby, Siegel+Gale, and other agencies brain trust endeavor.
(although I would tend to blame Siegel+Gale as having been paid a boatload of money and arriving at some unbelievably “insightful in presentation but unrealistic in practicality” conclusion)
Well.
I guess if they spend enough money it will work.
Spend enough and people will forget Comcast and only remember XFinity.
But.
Here’s the deal. Every day they will still be delivering the same ole same ole (which ain’t so hot). Therefore, in the end they will have spent gobs of money on this new “brand” and achieve exactly the same results.
Some would tend to believe this is a definition of insanity. I just tend to believe this is a stupid idea.
Anyway.
And wouldn’t it have been cheaper if they had all sat in a conference room contemplating their navels?
The strategic foundation is so simple and clearly good it is a worthwhile read for anyone in business. Whether you actually use the disruption methodology or not the idea of positioning in a way to create disruption (and therefore being distinct) is a powerful concept.
Drawing from experiences as the founder and chair of a global advertising agency, Dru gives us this practical, refreshing approach to thinking about advertising, positioning a business in the marketplace and … well … thinking in general.
His compelling concept of “disruption” is a three-step reasoning process for creating a set of new visions for successful growth.
Dru first explores how firms can get in a rut with their advertising strategies.
He then offers hundreds of examples of advertising in Europe, the United States, and Japan to explore cultural differences and government rules and regulations about advertising. Dru’s last section provides more detail and looks toward the future.
Rich with examples, this timely book is recommended for advertising-agency and marketing professionals as well as for corporate executives, consultants, and advanced students and academicians.
I have written on a variety of issues with regard to running a business and effective organizations (Running a Business Part 1 and Part 2, Collaboration & Consensus Part 1 & Part 2).
But I came across this video which discusses “the surprising science of motivation.”
It is a long video (18+ minutes) and Daniel Pink, the presenter, is a little practiced on occasion in his delivery but the information is nice. There were two things in the video which I appreciated.
One I had felt but had never been able to confirm.
The other I already knew but hadn’t written about yet.
1. Motivation Incentives.
Maybe it’s because I have worked with several advertising agency owners who wanted to run their agencies like manufacturing plants, but this issue has been near and dear to my heart for quite awhile. The video talks about “carrot and stick” motivational techniques and crap like that.
He uses some nice simple illustrations and some fact based conclusions for why the typical ways we try to motivate each other fail in business today.
A Daniel Pink Quote:
“There’s a mismatch between what science knows and business does.”
Possibly because most of the organizations I have either consulted for or worked at have been more “idea driven” versus “product output” organizations I have always believed (maybe more a feeling) that financial based reward models sucked. Daniel finally gave me some facts (from studies):
“Once the task called for even rudimentary cognitive skills a larger reward led to poorer performance.”
“As long as task involved only mechanical skills, bonuses worked, i.e., higher pay = better performance.”
Halleluiah.
That isn’t to say people in a cognitive driven business shouldn’t be fairly compensated; it simply states that rewarding financially to increase productivity is not the most effective path.
So if it isn’t financial rewards, what does help productivity?
2. Constructed Autonomy.
This is all about self direction within a solid construct of vision and company ‘direction.’ This is something I have believed to be an effective characteristic of effective organizations for some time. It is most likely embodied within larger franchise organizations (in some form or fashion) but it is easier to see it in those organizations because they are obviously fragmented and local autonomy works within some “rules” construct.
So.
The video.
In addition to talking about motivating employee behavior he also talks about creating an environment for productivity. I wrote about this in Organizational Alignment.
But.
He reminded me when he discusses the idea of autonomy about what I call “constructed autonomy” environments (yup. I do love contradictions).
I used the whole Constructed Autonomy idea in a consulting presentation in early spring (with a source reference) as I discussed organizational alignment and creating the most effective organization.
I apologize but for the life of me I cannot dig up the source for that autonomy business idea but I believe there was a big European based study on organizational behavior that talks about it (if I can find that presentation on some thumb drive I will source it).
My “twist” on the Autonomy thing was to tie it to a tightly constructed organizational vision. To me it’s all about giving employees within the organization lots of freedom within a well defined construct (not a box but rather a guiding star they can always locate).
Ok.
Maybe not lots of freedom but enough freedom on some key things (whatever they may be that is relevant to that particular organization).
Ok.
So here’s the deal with Autonomy.
Every time I have used the word “autonomy” to an organizational owner, President, Sr. VP, whatever…their faces pale, hands grip the table a little harder, they may even gasp a little and their voices quiver slightly with fear.
Autonomy means lack of control.
Autonomy means I need to trust my employees.
Autonomy means “so then what do I do”? (sorry, had to throw that last one in).
But autonomy on the ground:
permits a slight level of localization (if that is relevant to an organization)
certainly creates a higher level of responsiveness (good for customer satisfaction)
actually is a good idea/innovation generator (as long as you have a feedback mechanism)
automatically creates a higher level of energy within an organization
builds a happier organization because it creates a stronger sense of ownership & responsibility
It takes a strong leader with a clearly articulated vision to make autonomy work within an organization (if you don’t, then autonomy simply fragments an organization by permitting pieces to go flying off in every direction aimlessly).
So.
That’s the “Constructed” portion of it. In my Running a Business Part 2 I described this as one end of the bookends. A clearly articulated vision, mission, okay … what ‘the organization is going to be good at’. And ruthlessly good at.
If that is provided as the “North Star,” then Autonomy always knows what direction to steer toward. And because of that North Star, autonomous groups can wander slightly but have an opportunity to course correct (
which, by the way, is also a good evaluation mechanism for employees).
There you go.
A nice video sparking some clarification on my part.
So. Sundays are my “mother days” which meant I didn’t get to watch the Super Bowl excepting a couple of glimpses. I saw maybe three commercials. Nothing that really hit me (except I got to see Danica Patrick naked on a massage table which was okay).
But. As an avid SportsCenter watcher I was able to relive all the key moments as well as all the non key moments ad nauseam. Regardless. There was one segment and discussion that tingled my business antennae (I don’t really have antennae as you can see from my picture).
The Saints onside kick to open the second half.
So. Here’s the business lesson:
Prepare the team: Sean Payton told his team “we are going to do an onside kick”. He told them before the game. And stated in no uncertain terms they were going to do it regardless of the score or situation. So. When the time came he called the play (exactly like he told his team he would do). I wasn’t there but it seems he delivered on his leadership unhesitatingly. He put the idea in their heads early so when the moment came it wasn’t “huh” and no confusion. He simply pulled the trigger on a gun already cocked. The coach prepared the implementers for successful execution.
Prepare the referees: Awesome lesson.
First. He wanted the people who could make a difference to be aware (and he told them before the game…there is a lesson number two to that). Anyway. He wanted the refs prepared, aware and not surprised when it happened.
Second. Telling them before the game. Okay. I am sure he reminded the head judge as they came out from halftime but by telling them before the game it was one less thing for him to think about (it made it appear “business as usual” to any Colts “spies”). He eliminated a variable.
Surprised people may sometimes not be paying attention to the right thing. Surprised people may have been slightly out of position. The referees were prepared mentally and physically for the situation.
The coach had prepared the gatekeepers to success.
Prepare the opposition (for your own success): The coach told the refs the Saints would do it from a standard kickoff line up format. The coach had created an onside kick off play from a traditional kickoff line up. So. They lined up in the familiar kickoff lineup. The Saints didn’t “jump” the onside play and the Colts had no idea it was coming. The referees knew it was coming. The players were prepared to make it happen. Pretty much the perfect storm for success.
They executed an unexpected play from an expected structure. Gotta love it.
The coach created a situation to maximize the likelihood of success.
Nice lesson from the Saints. Stick with this in the business environment and you will complete more “plays” successfully. That’s for sure.