Enlightened Conflict

the strongest bridge

May 20th, 2013

So.

hope bridge by michael underwood

Several of my friends give me crap because of some of the obscure things I have stored away in my pea like brain <because I tend to read random obscure things and store it all away>. Therefore they ask me random obscure questions to see what I have stored away.

The random question this time?

What is the strongest bridge in the world?

My random answer?

Hope.

Hope is the strongest bridge in the world.

“All the great things are simple, and many can be expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope.” - Winston Churchill

Well.

It was a flippant response on my part … but it kind of made everyone at the table sit back and hesitate … because it is one of those rare insightful non-smartass flippant responses.

Ok. First.

To be clear.

I am not a psychologist <nor psychiatrist … I get them mixed up> nor am I a behavioral scientist <possible a mad scientist though … a childhood goal>. I say that because I may just not know jackshit. But here’s what I think.

Lots of discussions about the strongest motivators/demotivators on human behavior seem to revolve around fear, love, self esteem, hate , etc. <Maslow created that excellent chart which I have used so often and adhere to> … however … I tend to believe that all these experts overlook hope.

Research digs deep down into the moments of minutiae with regard to why we do the things we do.

Heck.

That is how the best companies in the world attempt to derive strategies to make their companies <and products & services> a success in people’s heads, hearts & wallets.

In my own pea–like brain something shadows each response found in research … hope.

“The present is the ever moving shadow that divides yesterday from tomorrow. In that lies hope.” - Frank Lloyd Wright

I imagine it is so often overlooked as something impactful or something we should pay attention to because it is stealthily present in everything. Yup. Everything. Attitudes & behaviors. Thoughts & actions. And because of its omnipresence it gets overlooked as “non differentiator.”

Silly thinking.

Because it is everything.

It is what someone called “the well of self” which can permit you to begin again … and again.

“Hope arouses, as nothing else can arouse, a passion for the possible.” – William Sloane Coffin

Everyone wants to be aroused by the possible.

And I am not even talking about this in the grandiose abstract <dreams and such> but even in the drivel of the day.

A grocery shopper has the simple hope that everything will be found as quickly as possible.

A coffee drinker hopes that the first sip is everything they expected <and desired>.

A father hopes his daughter has a good day at school.

You get it.

Hope isn’t often the really big things … it is in the gazillion little things that happen in everyday life as well as the big “I want a better life” type things.

And maybe that is why I flippantly suggested it is the strongest bridge in the world.

It is strong enough to span generations of years.

Strong enough to span yesterday to tomorrow.

Strong enough to span the micro-second subconscious thought.

So. I say all that maybe to suggest that losing hope deprives someone of an essential structure in Life. The bridge to … well … make it in Life.

To be able to get from here to there.

Now. That said.

I do believe more of those who actually have hope to share … should share it <pragmatically> with those who struggle to reach that bridge.

Yes.

I do believe professionally I am a ‘dealer of hope.’

Yes.

I do believe all forms of hope, realistic and unrealistic, are better than no hope at all.

Yes.

I do believe the moment you have lost sight of how to see, or reach out and touch, hope you have entered some version of Hell.

Sure. Life offers a multitude of disappointments. Life is not easy. But I fear it becomes unliveable without hope because then disappointment becomes infinite in a finite Life.

That, my friends, sounds overwhelming distressing even as I type it.

“We must accept finite disappointment, but never lose infinite hope.” - Martin Luther King, Jr.

John Lennon suggested people like me … believers in hope … are dreamers.

Well.

Maybe.

But Martin Luther King also said this …

“The hope of a secure and livable world lies with disciplined nonconformists who are dedicated to …”

In a way … a secure livable world lies with those dreamers. We disciplined nonconformists. Or maybe more pragmatically … bridge builders.

The resilience of Hope lies in we happy few … we happy disciplined nonconformists … we happy believers in hope despite what appears to be an infinite disappointment.

We happy few who have bridges to share.

We happy few who constantly drink from the well of self and … well … know how to begin again.

So, yes, the strongest bridge in the world is Hope.

giraffes I have known

May 16th, 2013

Well.

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.

Every 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. Apparently 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.”

It 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.>”

(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.

murphy’s laws of war (& business)

May 15th, 2013

Well.

This post is partially silly and partially truth.

And maybe that summarizes all of Murphy’s laws in general. What makes them fun to read is that they almost always seem to contain a <maddening> grain of truth.

I was cleaning out a folder and came across a shortened <there is a website that has almost 100 Murphy’s laws of war> list of Murphy’s Laws of war.

And, no, Murphy is no Sun Tzu <The Art of War>. Oh. But just to say this while it is on my mind … every business person should, at minimum, read The Art of War but it doesn’t hurt to have a copy of the little easy to read pamphlet in your working space. Its good <business> stuff.

Anyway.

Let me share Murphy’s version of war theory before I wax poetically on how relevant they are to business.

Murphy’s Laws of War:

- Professionals are predictable. It is the amateurs that are dangerous.

- Never draw fire … it irritates everyone around you.

- Friendly fire … isn’t.

- Never forget your weapon was made by the lowest bidder.

- The enemy invariably attacks on 2 occasions:

When they are ready
When you are not

- If the enemy is within range … so are you.

- Mines are equal opportunity weapons

- When the pin is pulled Mr. Grenade is not our friend

- When in doubt, empty your magazine.

- Don’t ever be first, don’t ever be last, and don’t ever volunteer.

- If it’s stupid but it works, it isn’t stupid.

Well.

On every single point I was drawing a correlation to business.

Professionals are predictable. Professionals can be bad … good … lazy … but predictable. And consistent. Why? Because they actually do know their shit. They may get lazy, or play politics or even get bullied by someone louder … but they really do know their shit. Amateurs? Well. Simply … they don’t know their shit. Sure. They may get lucky on occasion as well as they may instinctually be okay <on occasion> but they are extremely unpredictable. Even worse? If an amateur has an early success they stretch that to ‘I am now a professional’ and become dangerous. Amateurs are valuable to have around because (a) they can see things differently so you can work the wheat from the chaff and (b) someday they will be professionals. But on their own? They are dangerous.

Never draw fire … because it does irritate people around you. There is an art & a science to actually raising the objection … drawing out a complaint or criticism. It also contains risk. People do not like risk. Especially if they are not controlling it. If you draw the fire … be prepared to take the bullet(s). If you are not ready to do so? You will irritate the people around you even more.

Ah. Friendly fire. Let’s call it constructive criticism or what could be <and is often called> ‘healthy debate.’ Well. It may be healthy but it sure doesn’t feel good or healthy. I guess this also falls under the ‘if it hurts it must be good for you’ philosophy. By the way? That is a stupid philosophy. Work is difficult enough without offering up the supposed friendly fire to your co-workers.

Your weapon is made by the lowest bidder. Oh so true. In today’s business world, despite the fact everyone says ‘quality is number one’ they don’t really mean it. Ok. Maybe they mean it sometimes. And ‘sometimes’ means … well … there will always be an aspect where someone decided to go ‘lowest bidder.’ What do I mean? I have a project with 25 aspects. I decide to go lowest cost on 15 aspects so I can go high quality on the other 10. Murphy’s Law? Somewhere within the 15 going on the cheap will haunt you. I say all that <bringing it back to business> because while you may decide to put your ass on the line because you feel confident ‘we did it the right way’ … just know that somewhere within all that ‘right way’ a component was given to the lowest bidder.

The enemy attacking. I laughed when I read this. Why are people in business always scrambling to address competition? Well. It’s because they are always surprised when it happens. And it’s crazy. More time is wasted (a) preparing yourself for an attack that will never come when you want it to and (b) flailing in response to an attack. The point? You control what you can control. Your own company and business. Ignore an attack if it has acceptable losses and attack when you are ready.

If they are in range … you are in range. To me this is the disillusionment of believing you have an advantage. Advantages are so fleeting if you blink you can miss it <and get your ass blown off>. The moment you have an advantage … trust me … someone is already moving into either (a) the space you just left to get you from the rear or (b) into the same space you are moving into to attack all on their own. Never assume you have an advantage. Never assume if you perceive you have an advantage that it will last. Well. Never assume you are out of range.

Mines are equal opportunity weapons. Pointing out problems doesn’t mean you are absolved from (a) blame, (b) becoming part of the problem or even (c) getting your ass blown up. Notice how people are often hesitant to complain or point out some flaws? It isn’t because they don’t see them or recognize that they shouldn’t be solved … it’s because they also recognize that they could get hurt themselves. Oh. That’s why having a minesweeper employee is priceless. Pay her/him anything they want if they are good at it.

The grenade one. Well. That is a silly one. Kind of. Why kind of? Everyone makes mistakes … in life and in work. Mistakes, like it or not, are like grenades. Once a mistake is made … the pin is pulled. It may be on a 5 second timer, 5 hour timer … even a 5 year timer … but it is a grenade and it is on a timer. Too many times I see people trapped by their own mistakes. And, frankly, they get their ass blown off simply because they held on to the grenade. I know the metaphor is silly … but you get it. In business <for sure> and in Life <most of the time> mistakes have to be shared. By sharing you not only potentially save your own ass … you most likely decrease collateral damage. Simplistically … Mr. Grenade is not your friend.

When in doubt, empty your magazine. Whew. If I had seen this earlier I would have put it up as a sign in my office. Inside an office there is so much discussion on strategy of what to do and what to say and ‘showing all your cards’ and when … and it is such wasted energy. If you have the bullets use them. Trust me. If you use them all and still get killed it’s because you didn’t have enough or you didn’t shoot straight enough … you didn’t get killed because you should have held one or two back. Plus. There is a fairly well-known fact that magazines <business bullets> are manufactured in quantities. You can always grab another magazine if you get the opportunity. Say what? No more magazines or bullets! Oh well. Just means someone was smarter than you and had more bullets. Holding one or two back ain’t gonna help here either. Use it if you got it.

Don’t be first, last or volunteer. This one is tricky. But I will give a personal opinion on this … I prefer, in business, to be a quick follower. I know that may sound strange <because leading implies being first and I like leading> but I have always tended to believe the ‘first’ <in general> were simply the most hasty. The most impatient. The ones most scared to not be first. In their desire to be first they just didn’t have all their proverbial shit together. In fact … my dream business scenario is actually to see 2 hasty ‘firsts’ coming out of the blocks duking it out and bludgeoning each other. Whew. Did I just say I liked being the 3^rd out of the blocks? Well. Yeah. If it could play out that way. Being last? Nope. Too late. But a quick follower? Absolutely.

If it’s stupid and works it isn’t stupid. In the business world … too often when things go right and someone perceives it happened out of sheer luck or ‘stupidity gone right’ … it gets ignored. It gets ignored as (a) non replicable and (b) don’t want to replicate <because it was stupid>. You want to know what’s stupid? Ignoring something that worked. I am certainly not suggesting that the ends always justify the means but I am suggesting that working is working. Somehow, someway … it worked. Therefore somewhere within what happened something was not stupid.

Please note that it is mostly the arrogant know it all senior managers who overlook the ‘stupid but worked.’ They “know better.” They “know the right way to do it.” Aw … baloney. They are being stupid.

Well.

That was fun <for me>.

Oddly <in my pea like brain> I thought of writing this using Murphy when I saw this list in some magazine from the J.Crew CEO on business. Maybe because some of the things he suggests would make great Murphy’s Laws at some point.

In addition? I happen to agree with him on his list. Here are his thoughts … the ones I really liked.

Creativity Tips From J.Crew CEO Mickey Drexler

- “Every business could be creative.”

I talk to so many people about the lack of creativity in companies in America. Part of creativity is contrarianism. Creativity battles common wisdom. Because if there’s common wisdom, there’s an opportunity. In my own experience, whatever was a good idea was a bad idea to most people.

- “Companies are in the Stone Ages organizationally.”

You can tell by the offices. “I’m going to see the king!” The king is on the top floor and there are 17 people in front of the king’s office. There are layers of bureaucracy. It shouldn’t be like that.

- “Most companies should have a rule about how big they get.”

Not necessarily assigning a billion-dollar value or a 10 billion-dollar value, but companies that become too ubiquitous go one way.

- “America’s companies are built to destroy creativity.”

If you become the head of a big company today, you’re not the youngest person in the world. You have a contract. You get a jet. You have a huge overpaid salary. You get bonuses. Do you think that CEO is going to screw around with fast, creative change? No. And the board of directors–the last thing they want is someone who’s going to change things. Steve Jobs–he would bet the company, he wouldn’t care. But there are very few people who run companies that way.

- “You have to keep moving forward.”

Everything has a trend to it; I don’t care if it’s appliances or engines. I always ask: What has a company done in the past five years that somebody’s noticed?

- “You cannot copy high quality.”

It takes a long time to get a reputation for quality. There are people in our industry, they’re basically copiers. Look at the cars on the streets. They all look alike. But if you put quality into a product, then have it validated, you have huge credibility. It takes time to earn that.

- “Simplicity is very difficult to achieve.”

Try to ask someone to make a really good roast chicken.

—–

Good stuff.

Smart guy this Mickey. Maybe he should meet Murphy and create some laws.

storytelling

May 14th, 2013

Ok.

This TV commercial will not be for everyone. But it is exactly for the audience it was designed to talk to. Teens and young people will be bored. It is slow and unfolds and … well … it tells a story.

Older people <old as well as aspiring old> … will enjoy. Get a chuckle.

Oh.

And the good news? It is for a household cleaning product.

Oh.

More good news? It is from a staple household brand with gobs of heritage <been around for gobs of years> so it is relevant to whom they are <and subliminally kind of reminds you that they have been around for gobs of years thru a really nice hyperbole-stretched reference>.

Clorox Makes Cleaning History: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdXxcoo8L-w

The commercial is about this new ‘no waste’ cleaner pump spray they have. Not only is it a nice product/packaging idea but it is a nice storytelling way to talk about it.

Relevant to today <no waste, efficiency, good value, best expenditure you could make, etc.> but they also suggest that the idea has always been relevant.

Why is that important? Well. First. People who are saving money don’t really want to feel like today’s circumstances are forcing them to save money. They would like to feel they are just being smart … and being smart is timeless. Second. People don’t want to feel cheap. Cheap as in “that last little drop really does matter to me.”

Now.

That is a wonderful little insight … and that wonderful little insight <which apparently I did not come up with> was utilized in this little TV commercial.

And I bet research was used … and I finally get to talk about how research can be used well <because I am guessing this is a good example>. Here is my guess on what happened.

- Trivial out loud, aggravating inside

They <researchers> probably had to work pretty hard to get people to not only talk about this … but admit it. it sounds so trivial <the last spray … or … the last little drop>, petty and cheap. People probably didn’t really want to admit it.

You’re cleaning, spraying … it spritzes a little … and then the next squeeze of the trigger … nothin’. Nada <insert thought bubble of ‘crap’ over users head here>. You shake the container and … hey … there is still something in there <albeit just a smidge>! So you point, squeeze and … nothin’. Nada. You know it is, at best, one more use … maybe even a halfhearted spritz remaining … but it is aggravating <on a variety of levels … you didn’t get to finish cleaning to the level desired - a lack of completing objective – as well as ‘I paid for it’>.

Whew. Even typing this it sounds trivial. Saying it out loud? You sound cheap and petty.

C’mon. It’s just the dregs at the bottom of the bottle. Yup. BUT. Aggravating nonetheless.

Good use of research.

Next.

- It’s not the 1000, it’s the 1 I didn’t get.

This may seem obvious after what I just wrote in the first point … but it is a nuance that has to get recognized <and you would be flabbergasted – I just wanted to use that word – by how many professionals would miss this important nuance>. So it is only obvious if you don’t ignore it.

This is a well forgotten Life and marketing truth.

It ain’t the first impression that matters … it is the last.

The practical <hack> brand manager is likely to think … “great value … they got 1000 efficient uses for only $x … that is only pennies per pull!”

The insightful brand manager thinks … “they aren’t happy with the product … well … they are feeling less than satisfied as they throw it in the trash <and listen to a little sloshing as it drops into the trash can> … their last impression is tinged with a sense of aggravation or dissatisfaction. Hmmmmmmmmm …. They are defining the product by the one spray they didn’t get rather than the 1000 they did get.”

Does that make an irrational consumer? You bet.

Does it matter anyway? You bet.

Perceptions don’t always match up to reality. You have a choice … manage the perceptions or change reality. Clorox was smart. They changed reality. They eliminated the ‘one I didn’t get.’ Smart.

Good use of research <and someone who could actually decipher it>.

<note: detergent manufacturers should take note of this insight because all the new ‘free flow’ liquid containers leave an aggravatingly large amount of detergent left sloshing around that you cannot get out>

Regardless.

I like this commercial for a number of reason.

Good insight(s). it’s smart.

Meaningful product enhancement <addresses a user problem>.

Heritage. Clorox has been around forever. In a nice understated way they remind you they have been around since … well … a long frickin’ time.

They make the user feel smart.

They even have a slight chuckle at their own expense <we did think of this a long time ago but lost it>.

And it’s a simple execution … but entertaining. It doesn’t have any of those flashy production techniques nor any of those quick cuts back and forth between random vignettes … but rather it is … well … a story.

Stories are timeless when told well.

Marketing people should remind themselves of this on occasion.

Well done Clorox.

the web as the problem? (and children’s education)

April 17th, 2013

Well.

My project global generation may never go anywhere … but it certainly puts me within some of the most interesting conversations with regard to educating the youth.

Let me share the part of the conversations that is a head scratcher <at least to me>.

But it is a consistent head scratcher part.

Like in the over 90% of the time consistent.

My conversations begin with ‘it is a web based global children’s education’ and always <and I mean always> veers very quickly to someone stating unequivocally … “how the world wide web has made things more difficult-worse-insert some negative comment here.”

The web is destroying reading skills.

The web is destroying cognitive skills.

The web is spreading criminal (lower value-ethic) attitudes to a broad audience.

The web facilitates laziness.

The web is diminishing attention spans.

The web is giving voice to thoughts that are encouraging the destruction of character.

All, some, most and more.

The majority of older people want to go back to the “way it was before” because it was better (definition of better would be “we weren’t lazy, had broader attention spans, stronger character, less people thought criminal like thoughts, we read more … ).

The majority of older people seem to think of the past as ‘simpler.’

“How many people long for that “past, simpler, and better world,” I wonder, without ever recognizing the truth that perhaps it was they who were simpler and better, and not the world about them?” – R.A. Salvatore

Well. after scratching my head … In the beginning I used to just chuckle and try the “it is what it is today … we cannot ‘undo’ the web so why waste energy looking backwards?”

Well.

Experience has taught me that (a) that is not the A response (b) that response got me nowhere very fast (c) there are a shitload of people – people with leadership roles, smarts and influence – who are dedicating a shitload of energy into trying to reintroduce past plans of action <albeit at least focusing on those which can often be associated with some success thank god>.

So.

I have regrouped. While my path of least resistance would seem to be to find those who don’t want to go backwards but instead embrace what is and move forward , alas, I can’t.

Maybe I am too stubborn <yes>.

Or maybe in some semi smart way I have realized there is a significant group damming up the flow of progress. And this ‘stubborn against change’ group are creating a double fold issue:

(1) – They are increasing creating an ever increasing gap between age generations.

While there is always friction between age generations as innovations occur something like the web (just as the printing press and maybe the automobile did) is a lightning rod of paradigm shifting attitudes and behaviors. Generations have never been further apart.

(2) – They are increasing the problem gap.

Issues are being exacerbated as they balk at moving forward. No solution behavior translates into issues being permitted to gain momentum (which I feel obligated to point out from a physics perspective that a faster moving object is more difficult to slow down, stop or change direction than one moving at a slower pace).

Anyway.

Let’s try some of this thinking out.

- 1. Kids read more today than ever before.

Oh. And reading is reading.

Yeah.

Reading is reading (with regard to cognitive skills). I was part of an online TED forum on this subject and I was getting the shit kicked out of me (by people who were arguing the web/texting/twitter was destroying cognitive skills in children) until this gentleman stepped in (or ‘up to the plate’ or ‘to stand by my side’ or whatever phrase indicative of a sigh of relief on my part) and said this:

“but … I don’t even know where to begin with this one. I have a PhD in reading. Not that this necessarily means I’m smart, it’s just that I’ve studied and continue to study reading. So here goes…it doesn’t matter what a person reads, in what form, by which author, on which device. Reading is reading.
My first “Crayola secret” for you is that we all read on 4 different levels: instructional, informational, recreational , and frustrational. Not any one is better than the other. Just read. The definition of comprehension? It’s still being worked on. No one, not even the experts and researchers, can seem to agree.” - Marti Dryk, PhD

Amen.

Reading is reading. And between tweets, social media, web searches, e-books … and good ole fashioned paper literature … kids are absorbing more words and thoughts than ever before.

- 2. Young people have always had short attention spans.

<note: and I could argue changes in parenting style have affected children’s attitudes and behaviors – including attention span – more than the web>.

Regardless.

A teen brain has always been a teen brain. As I have written before in that stage of development it simply gets overloaded (with stimulus) and it is wired for short bursts of stimulus. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be teaching the value of “make haste slowly” but on the other hand we do not have any research proof suggesting teaching USING how their brain works (of which the web provides that opportunity where an adult teacher is not readily capable (their brains are built differently) is not effective. If you search for data you will find it is mostly negatively anecdotal (obviously from adults). All I am suggesting is that sometimes a classroom is less effective because we are teaching one way and the recipients natural way of absorbing is another way. That misalignment creates inefficiencies. Why not use a tool and educate in a way that is aligned.

- 3. The web is not encouraging laziness <or lazy thinking>

First.

When we were young we were exactly the same type of ‘lazy thinker’ we older folk claim the web is creating. In our youth we wanted to get to the solution <or whatever would get us the good grade> as quickly as we possibly could. The web is a double edged sword. Quick solutions or answers are easily at your fingertips. Now. They may not be the right solutions or answers but they are right there. On the other hand … multiple solutions or answers are at your fingertips. Some right and some wrong. I have to be honest … I see as many adults today seeking the ‘shortcut’ to answer as I do the youth.

Second.

I actually believe the web is creating a more vigorous thinker … albeit a different type of thinking than we old folk were. The web makes such a myriad of factoids <and semi-factoids> available so quickly that the young are becoming more discernible analyzers, evaluators and thinkers earlier than any generation before.

Who gets the credit? The web <note … with some good guidance from teachers>.

Ok.

Moving on.

I always hesitate to say this <as a nonparent> but I am not sure it is any more difficult to bring up children today than it was in the past.

Different? Absolutely … more difficult? I think not.

Kids are kids.

And they have always been kids.

They are adults in training.

As adults we want what we want. Kids are the same. The web has simply given them a new tool to do what kids do and have always done. The web has probably made it more difficult for a parent to be lazy thinkers (as parents) and at the same time make it more difficult to be “opinion selective” when sharing thoughts.

I think of it as a balance sheet. The web has increased both assets and expenses. But it is still a balance sheet.

I just tend to believe that the value of the overall balance sheet has increased with the advent of the web.

Anyway.

I cannot remember who wrote this <it was an author> … “the web … it is just a matter of time before some kid from North Dakota decides to blow past the popular kids … just blow them out of the water … with something spectacular.”

Maybe the greatest aspect of the web is the fact it is an equalizer. It can level the playing field so that all kids … whether they are popular or not … whether they live in upper income New York or rural North Dakota … whether … well … whatever … can do something spectacular.

And, geez, who the heck wouldn’t want that for our kids?

my new contrarian hero is contagious

April 16th, 2013

Well.

Contrarians need to stick together … or … well … stick up for each other.

My newest contrarian hero is a guy named Jonah Berger … for several reasons. First. Because not only has he mastered the statement of the obvious:

“We miss out on the value of the message itself as a vehicle for driving virality.” – Jonah Berger

… secondly, he also supports it with research <albeit some of us have been stating it, or something similar to it, for years> … and third, and most importantly, he is using all those trite ‘here is the secret to success’ business books as his foil.

Jonah has a new business book called “Contagious” which I will admit I will never buy but I will also admit probably does as nice a job of outlining some basics of effective communication.

<Contagious: Why Things Catch On by Jonah Berger. At 32, the assistant professor of marketing at University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of Business is carving out a corner of academia for himself in the study of social epidemics, or how products, ideas, and behaviors become popular>

He even has a nifty sound bite compilation of sound bites to create a sound bite philosophy:

Here are his STEPPS for making anything go viral:

- Social Currency: We share things that make us look good (even if that means pictures of our cat).

- Triggers: Easily memorable information means it’s top of mind and tip of the tongue.

- Emotion: When we care, we share.

- Public: Built to show, built to grow.

- Practical Value: News people can use.

- Stories: People are inherent storytellers, and all great brands also learn to tell stories. Information travels under the guise of idle chatter.

Catchy isn’t it?

Basically he has used aspects from what every one of the top advertising agencies currently teach, utilize and suggest on their own websites <albeit they do it in mini sound bites> and compiled them into a list.

But.

Here is the real genius.

This is nothing new.

Story, Emotion, and Practical Value have been the mainstay of the communications business for years … nope … decades. Let’s even say for a century.

It was the cornerstone of everything I was taught in the advertising business beginning in the 1980’s.

Don’t believe that?

You can visit the advertising archives at Duke University and find this same information in archival information from the 1930’s, 40’s and 50’s <in some nifty in house advertising>.

Anyway.

All that said … what makes him a bigger genius? <the part that makes him my newest hero>.

He is deflating all the tripe ‘The Tipping Point’ and ‘Made to Stick’ and all those other bestselling business books have been peddling to us and the stuff I know I have been kicked out of boardrooms for suggesting is sound bite tripe.

His book actually seems to also in a contrarian way attack what businesses have been battling for several years now … how to handle what Napoleon first suggested …

“un croquis vaut mieux qu’un long discours.” <a sketch is better than a long discourse>

Now.

Sketch <or brevity>. The business world has gone wacko over this thought … going to absurd lengths to create the ultimate soundbite under the belief “a person will only remember one thing” or “all people have the attention span of a gnat so tell them what you need to tell them in 3 seconds or less.”

Well.

Unfortunately, and truthfully, some things are just too complex to communicate in a sound bite or in 3 seconds or less. Effective communication <or ‘contagious communication’> would be one of those topics.

No matter how brief and simple you want to make it … well … it is neither brief nor simple. It is complex and sometimes the opposite of brief.

It isn’t just about telling a story.

Nor is it just about finding influencers to broker the story.

Nor is it just about practical value.

Nor is it just about emotion.

Unfortunately it is a combination of those things.

Regardless.

I have been tempted to write several business books … one even on simplicity and effective communications. And I just saw some of the high falutin’ folk with high falutin’ titles at SiegalGale <one of the top branding companies in the universe … yes … almost solar system-esque in their expertise> are publishing something about Simplicity … Simple: Conquering the Crisis of Complexity <I am hoping they cite me from one of my simplicity posts … but not holding my breath>.

They could have used something from any of these …

http://brucemctague.com/simple-complicated-complicated-simple

http://brucemctague.com/simplicity

http://brucemctague.com/simplicity-the-project-brief

by the way … it is probably a ‘simple truth’ with regard to simplicity but the main issue is not trying to find the simple within a crisis of complexity but rather not making something that is extremely simply into something complicated <or complex>.

Anyway.

Let me explain the trouble I ran into writing my business book on ‘effective simplicity.’

It was a short book.

Two pages <on index cards in fact>.

Page 1: say something meaningful.

Page 2: say that something in an interesting way.

And then because about the only additional advice I give someone is to be ruthless editors with regard to communication and words <sketch instead of discourse Napoleon thing> … well … I simplified it into one index card:

“Say something meaningful in an interesting way.” – Me <author of “the shortest business book ever written”>

Shit.

There is my book.

Save yourself a boatload of money on all those business books.

There it is.

Do that and you have as much of a chance of creating something contagious <or drive ‘message virality’ to use a Jonah term>, or made to stick or tipping cows or points or people or whatever.

There are no formulas nor are there any checklists.

It isn’t really about telling a story <although you can if it is interesting> and it really isn’t about simplified in a short sweet concise way <although you can if a long type driven story isn’t meaningful or compelling>. It is just about doing what is right at that time in that place.

You can use lots of words or few words.

You can use white space or little space.

You can use a great compelling visual or no visual at all.

You cannot use words or pictures or stories that say something meaningless.

You cannot be uninteresting.

Oh. If only it were all this simple.

men and doves

April 11th, 2013

Well.

I have been slightly paying attention to the new Dove men care marketing effort and then I saw an excellent television commercial featuring Jay Bilas and I became fully invested in thinking about it.

First.

The television commercial:

Jay Bilas Big Dance: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xOwh0IxurA

<note: the following link takes you to all videos including the Dwayne Wade kids one which is also nice: http://www.dovemencare.com/Videos/>

I won’t dissect the Jay Bilas execution. It is charming, topical and well executed.

Second.

About the actual Dove Mencare line.

Dove® Men+CareTM Face Range is a full line of skin care developed specifically for men’s skin. Offering a variety of solutions that tackle men’s most common concerns – skin dryness, sensitivity, blocked pores and oily skin. The regimen provides skin care in three steps – Cleanse, Shave and Finish – to fit into any man’s grooming routine.

Now.

I admit.

I think some of this is marketing bullshit <trying to create a distinction between men and women needs> … for example … Cleanse with Care: So if you shouldn’t use soap on your face what should you use? Soap dries, Dove Men+Care doesn’t.

Well.

How is that different from a woman’s face needs? <maybe I am showing my true Neanderthal because I truly cannot answer that question>.

Seems like a woman wouldn’t want soap that “dries” if men would want it.

Specifically for men’s skin? Yeah. Whatever.

Anyway.

The real reason I elected to write about this.

Once I became invested in thinking about it … well … I admit.

I have mixed feelings about a men’s line of products from Dove.

Dove is, has been, and will always be … a female brand. A brand, with products, owned by woman-kind.

Yeah.

I am sure there are gobs of research showing that men have secretly been using Dove because <1> it works, <2> it smells good, and <3> men don’t give a shit and will use whatever is handy, i.e., whatever the woman put in the soap dish.

And I am sure there is also gobs of research showing that “empowering the male shopper to make unique purchases fulfills the subconscious self esteem” <yup … while I made this one up … you see that crap in research presentations >.

And I am absolutely sure there were gobs of analytics showing the potential sales on a line “specifically designed for men.”

But I still have mixed feelings … for one simple reason.

Well … Dove is, has been, and always will be … a female brand.

Now.

The folks at Dove <I am assuming they hired some men because women could never figure this out> have done a spectacular job clearly delineating what is for Men and what is not.

They are executing this business idea flawlessly.

And I could probably do a gangbuster presentation just using what I see from the outside looking in discussing the merits of what they are doing.

But.

Well … Dove is, has been, and always will be … a female brand.

The lure of the almighty dollar can convince you to do a lot of things in the world of business and marketing <and absurd acts of brand destruction>. And that same lure can convince you to isolate research data to prove your point.

That lure can also make you dance on the head of a pin to make your decision look clear cut.

This is not a clear cut decision.

I am not suggesting it is a bad decision … nor am I suggesting that in the end it won’t look like a damn good decision.

But I am suggesting it is a risky decision.

And I am also betting it is a decision that had the head person of the existing Dove product line fuming <and tearing hair out and lots of gnashing of teeth> because there is risk <and the existing Dove line was probably quite fat, dumb & happy, i.e., very profitable>.

However.

What I truly like about thinking about this?

I am not sure I would have had the kahones to do this.

And I love that.

Despite all the research factoids I threw out at you <that I made up … but am almost 99% sure are correct> I am not sure I would have borrowed the Dove equity and brought it into the Men’s category. Not because I don’t think men wouldn’t make the leap <for god’s sake … they have been slathering their woman’s Dove all over their bodies for years and they haven’t grown a vagina yet> but because I wouldn’t be sure women wouldn’t feel like they have been sold out by Dove.

Dove is theirs, has been, and will always be … oops … well … maybe not always.

It was okay when men stole it <in fact there is some satisfaction in this slightly guilty behavior> but now they can have their own Dove.

Sound silly?

Well.

Remember. Companies do not make a brand. The users do. They are fragile fickle things those users.

Someone at Dove is banking on fickleness landing in their camp.

Someone at Dove is banking on this decision not neutering the brand.

I have one word for ya.

Kahones.

Someone at Dove has ‘em.

I love it.

a penney for my thoughts

April 10th, 2013

So.

A quick thought on JC Penney and the firing of their CEO. The bleeding was too much and now the CEO, a guy named Johnson, is gone.

Without investing a lot of energy researching the details nor insuring I have all the facts right … here is a quick summary of the situation and my own penny and a ½ thought.

A year and ½ ago. JC Penney is showing profits but becoming increasingly irrelevant in the category and shrinking as frightening levels.

They hire a new CEO <from outside the industry>. He decided to make “the big change.”

- On joining the firm, he said, “In the U.S., the department store has a chance to regain its status as the leader in style, the leader in excitement. It will be a period of true innovation for this company.”

They institute the ‘big change.’

- Abruptly scrapping dubious pricing policies of marking up prices and then offering discounts, with heavy promotions, and coupons as well as incorporated new more fashionable items at reasonable prices all the time.

Sales plummeted.

- The approach didn’t fare well with Penney’s customer base of bargain hunters. They rebelled, traffic declined.

Penney slowly returned to the prior era of pricing, with lots of promotions, lots of price-focused ads, and marked-up prices that would be later marked down.

JC Penney reports a $20+million loss.

CEO fired.

<note: all his happens in 17 months>

Look.

I buy the fact the immediate priority for JCPenney is survival. Stop, or slow, the bleeding.

And I can guarantee a boatload of pundits will rush to the forefront suggesting the CEO didn’t understand the “woman buyer” or “how women like to shop.” <in other words … they will pull out Paco Underhill – the master of shopping psychology – and start saying ‘it’s the thrill of the hunt, not the buying. “>

Baloney.

He knew exactly what he was doing.

And you know what?

He may have been right and judging after 17 months is ludicrous.

Particularly after a knee jerk “whoa! Let’s go back to lots of promotions to bring people back” action.

The CEO was well aware of the mismatch between the vision, strategy and the existing management and culture.

In addition they had to make changes to the product line, marketing and sales and, most importantly, the customer’s perceptions & attitudes <which affect their behavior>.

But he was also aware that radical changes needed to be made <assuming everyone wanted to have a radical result>.

Penney’s aggressive discount practices had not only cut into pricing strategy <it had actually become their pricing strategy> but the company <and brand> had diminished in consumers’ heads.

Macy’s & Kohls were stealing Penney’s business.

The guy came in and decided to clearly re-position the company, and brand, in the marketplace.

Was it a misalignment with the portions of current customer base? You bet.

But wasn’t that the point?

And the new strategy was about authentic & honesty.

Geez. That’s a shitty strategy, huh?

Even better?

I bet good ole Jacque Penney himself <assuming there was one> was standing up in heaven applauding that someone was actually implementing the original vision.

The vision was incredibly sound.

I was not in the board room but I envision no one forecasted this huge a loss … but, you know what? That is where conviction gets tested.

Shit. If Margaret Thatcher was a CEO she would have been fired after 17 months if this was the way of judging.

I am not suggesting the decision to move forward would have been right, nor easy, but judging in 17 months is ludicrous.

My point?

A boatload of people are going to rush to judge this event.

In fact what inspired me to write about this was one of the talking heads on CNN who unequivocally stated “this is going to be a poster case study in MBA schools for what not to do.”

Well.

That is not only silly but crazy.

The CEO had a clear vision to delight Penney customers. Nothing wrong about that.

But delighting customers is tricky.

And it gets even trickier when:

- The organization is not aligned

- And the organization <and outside financial world> panics.

We will never be able to judge this CEO nor the event.

Someone at JC Penney will bastardize the vision. People will be quick to point out the failure … but WE WILL NEVER KNOW if it was a failure or not.

How can we?

17 months for a massive organization like JC Penney? It would be crazy to think you could make the tanker sized business shift almost 180degrees in 17 months.

Me?

I love the vision he had.

I love the fact he actually was going back to the heritage of JC Penney. What it originally stood for.

I love the fact he recognized that brand is not a brand if it is simply promotion <or what some people may call ‘bargain’>.

Would I have implemented it differently than he did? Maybe. I don’t know. It is the infamous debate of gradual change versus quick change.

All I know is that change is painful.

Oh. I also know that dramatic results are dependent upon dramatic measures.

In the end … who knows what the ‘new JC Penney’ could have achieved after they had survived the change bloodbath.

Yeah.

Someone is gonna send me a note about “you have to survive.’ Well. Let me remind everyone of my ‘how far will you go’ post: http://brucemctague.com/how-far-would-you-go-to-solve-a-problem.

Sometimes organizations need to make dramatic changes to turn themselves around. The longer you permit your organization to go down the slippery slope of irrelevance the more dramatic the change has to be. And sometimes you find a leader with a good vision and the balls to implement the dramatic change.

Unfortunately … in today’s business world … no one seems to have the balls to do it.

What I will tell you is that JC Penney will now go the way of Woolworths & Wanamakers. Or maybe the Dollar Store will buy them.

instinct

April 6th, 2013

“Ideas pull the trigger, but instinct loads the gun.” – Don Marquis

This quote is taken from Marquis’ “The Almost Perfect State” which was written in 1927 as a series of sharp criticisms of the Progressive Era.

Ok.

I imagine a lot of people read this quote and wonder if the quote would work better … “ideas load the gun, but instinct pulls the trigger.”

But I believe that misses Don’s point <albeit I have not spoken with him on this topic … he died in 1937>.

The point?

Knowledge and experience can only take you so far.

It is the difference between being solely analytical and incorporating the intangible <the instinctual>.

What he is suggesting is that all the bright big ideas in the world don’t mean shit if they cannot be brought into being without a person who can originate the intellectual movement of action. This person requires a special character.

Ah.

Special character.

Instinct is one of those things people hate.

Because it is not tangible … and it always assumes some level of risk.

It is research of one <which scares the shit out of people these days>.

That means …

Collaboration? Well. Nope.

Consensus? Geez. Nope.

Extrapolation through the hypotenuse of multiple data points discussed ad nausea and plotted on some nifty white board? Sounds like fun … but … nope.

Instinct is gut … albeit typically great instincts have been honed by experience and knowledge.

But in the end … it is not tangible nor proven.

It is … well … just what it is.

Sure.

It can be cultivated.

And it can even be honed.

But I do not believe it can be taught.

Well. Let me take that back and try this.

Good instincts cannot be taught.

Good instinct is first and foremost an internal aptitude. We all have instincts … but some just have gooder instincts. Beyond that natural foundation it is probably a combination of experience and knowledge and ultimately a mindset.

I say a mindset because instinct is a feeling and not anything visible or tangible. You sense what to do and where to go and what to say.

And it often isn’t because your instincts are proven good … but just rather that you know what feels wrong.

“Every time I’ve done something that doesn’t feel right, it’s ended up not being right.” – Mario M. Cuomo

That said.

I know one of the most frustrating things I have heard in business decision meetings is “I am not sure what the right thing to do is … but … what we are discussing doing sounds wrong.”

And while frustrating … it also feels right.

We sometimes get so rushed to make a decision we grab one … anyone will do. And, yet, it feels wrong … okay … maybe not wrong … just not right.

That is instinct.

Not only knowing the path to success … but also recognizing paths to failure & disappointment <before you even take one step on that path>.

It is a true joy to be near someone with good, if not great, instincts.

They seem to be in an effective zone and not in a comfort zone. What I mean is that they have a habit of disregarding distractions … discerning the important from the unimportant … and have a focus. That focus may not be the destination <it can be> but oftentimes their instincts are reflective of the journey to the destination.

They have a humble confidence … and sometimes are even slightly insecure <I imagine because their strength is in the intangible>.

“Trust instinct to the end, even though you can give no reason.” ― Ralph Waldo Emerson

And they are rarely emotional in decision making.

Now.

Conversely, it is absolutely miserable to be near someone who has crappy instincts <but thinks they have good instincts>.

It is not only miserable because you end up going down lots of fruitless paths and waste a lot of energy but also because instincts are intangible.

There are no numbers or research or facts that can counter instincts and intuition. Therefore someone in a leadership position who has crappy instincts is unmovable. They are literally an elephant in the room.

That is misery.

Regardless.

Instinct is a natural aptitude.

Kind of like a knack.

An innate tendency or response to act in ways that, at its most base description, is essential to development, preservation or survival.

As Hayakawa suggests … instinct implies innate disposition rather than having a talent. It is not a gift, nor a talent or even an aptitude. It is more an inborn intangible. It could be called a ‘Knack’ but that has almost always been associated with social rather than intellectual causes & situations.

It is tough in today’s world for people with good instincts.

While intellectual in its strength it is not proven with any reason.

In an over thinking, over analyzing, over safe world .. ‘without reason’ doesn’t often gain a place at the table.

Instinctual decision making often requires having people follow with some blind faith. And in a world of consensus and collaboration … well … that ain’t happening much these days.

let the clocks stop

April 6th, 2013

April is national poetry month. The concept of a month for poetry seems almost silly to me.

Well. I would imagine it would be silly to Plath, Browning, Longfellow and maybe even Frost.

Poetry is not a month. It is of a moment.

Time is, and always has been, the judge of poetry.

Time will sift the good stuff from the bad. Time will sift so you & I don’t have to.

You have to believe this … because in the here and now?

Writing poetry guarantees a poet one thing in Life … death by neglect.

But I believe poets write to insure feelings do not get neglected. They do one thing in Life … keep feelings alive.

Maybe better said … bring moments in Life alive.

Moments that only exist in the intangible … what you feel.

“The poet begins where the man ends.

The man’s lot is to live his human life,

the poet’s to invent what is nonexistent.” ― José Ortega y Gasset

Wystan Hugh Auden <W.H. Auden> pointed out that poetry is a way of happening.

Poetry brings out the moment within the Life moments.

But it is when I think of Auden I always remember the words … stop all the clocks … <most people will remember it from 4 Weddings & a Funeral>.

Stop all the clocks, cut off the telephone,
Prevent the dog from barking with a juicy bone,
Silence the pianos and with muffled drum
Bring out the coffin, let the mourners come.

Let aeroplanes circle moaning overhead
Scribbling on the sky the message He Is Dead,
Put crêpe bows round the white necks of the public
doves,
Let the traffic policemen wear black cotton gloves.

He was my North, my South, my East and West,
My working week and my Sunday rest,
My noon, my midnight, my talk, my song;
I thought that love would last for ever: I was wrong.

The stars are not wanted now: put out every one;
Pack up the moon and dismantle the sun;
Pour away the ocean and sweep up the wood.
For nothing now can ever come to any good.

—–

note: Like many of Auden’s works it is most recognized by the first line “Stop All the Clocks”. It is actually called “Funeral Blues” and is the first poem in a duo titled “Two Songs for Hedli Anderson. It was first published in its final, familiar form in 1938, but based on an earlier version published in 1936.

Well.

I imagine writing poetry is not for the faint of heart or the thin of skin.

But I also imagine that a true poet seeks not a month for recognizing poetry but rather seeks to share a moment that makes someone feel something … if but for a moment.

I write <bad amateurish> poetry.

Regardless … I, just as any poet , amateur or published, probably hopes that some words we dare to put on paper stops all the clocks if but for a moment.