The few employees remaining are being more productive
People are drinking more cheap liquor and not in restaurants.
Am I the only one to conclude that drinking cheap liquor increases productivity in the workplace and may be a key variable in increased unemployment and the recession?
First. The Labor Department says new claims for unemployment insurance rose again (this was 2/4/10 report). Surprise, huh? Oh. And it’s a separate post but what am I counted as? I am not working but I don’t claim unemployment insurance. I cannot envision I am the only one. I guess once again I am just “unclassified.”
Second. In another report Thursday, the Labor Department said worker productivity rose more than expected in the October-December quarter as companies squeezed more output from their employees. All I can say is “cheap bastards.”
Anyway. Productivity rose a seasonally adjusted 6.2% in the fourth quarter, above analysts’ expectations of a 6% rise. The increase follows two quarters of sharply rising productivity. Overall, productivity has risen 5.1% in the past four quarters, the most since the 12 months ending with the first quarter of 2002.
Third. In a third report last year, the lowest-priced liquor segment, with brands such as Popov vodka that can go for less than $10 for a fifth, grew the fastest, with volume rising 5.5%, after edging up 0.6% in 2008. Meanwhile, the most expensive price range, roughly $30 or more for a 750 ml bottle (think Grey Goose, owned by Bacardi), fell the most, tumbling 5.1%. Sales in stores — which make up three-quarters of liquor sales — rose about 2.1%, while sales in restaurants fell 3%.Sales volume for the cheapest versions of tequila rose 21%, the fastest of any type of spirit.
Fourth. Hey. I am no Einstein but I do know that A + B = C (or squared or whatever). So. I conclude cheap liquor is helping create this recession. Eliminate liquor and employees will be less productive and then companies will need to hire more people to maintain their productivity. (Hey, I took Economics in college).
Once again Enlightened Conflict combats ignorance and is the first to tell the truth about the recession.
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).
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.
It’s a marketing ploy used in a marketing environment (doesn’t a double negative erase itself?).
It is all about tiny sharp insights. Sharp insights that have the possibility of expanding to something big. Unfortunately I now have a visual of one of those stupid little sponges that expand when you put a drop of water on them).
Maybe Big Ideas are crap is overstating it a little. It is the concept of “finding” or “uncovering” the Big idea that is crap.
What is the Big Idea? Simply by starting your thought process out with this question you have complicated your life and in fact you are saying you are seeking the wrong thing. For in seeking something big you find something that can be torn apart into meaningless little nothings.
I cannot tell you how many times I have seen presentations where someone presented “the Big Idea” and I admit it looked really good. Really Big. And everyone walks out of the room feeling like they have been in the presence of something Big and Big things are gonna happen. Then reality enters the room. The Big Idea needs to be implemented. And the implementing organization starts picking at parts & pieces. And the implementers start dealing with all the individual parts & pieces needed to … well .. actually implement the Big Idea. All of a sudden the Big Idea (which was probably a pretty good looking puzzle when it was all together) is a jumble of little puzzle pieces (which don’t fit together to make that really nice Big puzzle again).
Compounding the “Big Idea is crap” issue is that the Big Idea originator (who really didn’t think through all the littleness needed to bring it to life) starts compromising on the Little implementation components (and they don’t need to be just tactics, it can be words and phrasing and things like that) and that makes the jumble of little puzzle pieces become even more jumbled and even less likely to fit back into the Big Idea puzzle.
Oh. And the Big Idea Originator always sits back and blames the Big Idea Organization Owner because they couldn’t see the Bigness in the Idea well enough to not break it apart. Silly. Each component of the Big Idea Organization thinks of themselves as Big in their own right with Big needs and wants to own their Big part. The Big Idea Originator forgot, and consistently does, that without all the Little parts in the organization working to become Big (or even just thinking Big thoughts) the organization is neither Big nor Little, it is simply nothing.
That is why the Big Idea thinking process is crap.
As an acorn becomes an oak. We should be seeking the acorn. We need to learn to revel in the smallness and power of what it is. And understand the gloriousness of what this little thing can become if it is watered and nurtured.
But.
Small isn’t sexy in marketing. It needs to be Big to be meaningful. Too bad. Because Big Ideas are crap.
I have always believed the moment you own a contradiction is the moment you capture an emotional and intellectual awareness.
I encountered one on Tuesday.
Letting go and holding on.
That was the day my 15 year old dog died. That morning I was ready to let go and wanted to hold on.
Walking into the vet with my dog’s head resting on my shoulder I had already said goodbye alone at home. I was ready to let go.
And yet.
When I laid him down on his towel at the vet I asked for a couple minutes more.
I wanted to hold on. What I chose to do was scratch him behind his ear and say goodbye. I know he couldn’t feel it. It was more for me then it was for him. But. It was my last time to hold on to him before I let go.
Illustrator Harry Grant Dart’s vision of the increasingly aggressive and intrusive character of advertising in turn-of-the-century America appeared in a 1909 issue of Life. During this period, the growth of mass production and mass marketing changed the way consumer goods were bought and sold. Information about products now came not from those who made or sold them, but from persuasive advertisements trying to create brand recognition and brand loyalty. Advertisements moved out of separate sections in the back of magazines, as the newest periodicals featured full-page ads and depended upon advertising, rather than subscriptions, for their revenue. Coordinated advertising campaigns using billboards, store displays, and electric signs, became common.
I am not sure if this is a rant or a diatribe. But. I read something the other day about making brands indispensable.
Okay. Let’s talk about indispensable. Sure. Many great traditions dictate some “indispensable” actions.
Getting married and diamonds.
New Years Eve and alcohol.
Love and flowers.
Emotional traditions are the strongest links to indispensable.
How about functional indispensables?
Water. Food. And beer (to college kids).
An indispensable brand? (harrumph. Bet you haven’t seen that in awhile)
To me … to believe you can make your brand indispensable is pure & simple marketing arrogance.
You can make it useful.
You can intertwine it in a positive way into the lives of people.
You can even make people emotional about it.
Indispensable? To the wacky few maybe (yeah. We have all seen that guy who only buys Coke apparel and products for his family every Christmas. And maybe the pez connoisseur.) But don’t be fooled by these fanatical few. You love ‘em as a manufacturer (oops, brand). But you can’t build a brand around them. In fact in some cases you hesitate to make too big deal about them.
Brands become “brands” because a certain group of people have deigned to anoint your product as such.
And the most loyal of this group are probably “head over heels in like” with you.
I purposefully use like here.
In today’s world “brand love” is not a common thing (maybe in the 50’s when people had fewer choices and no internet to create educational doubt). The best it seems to get resides “in like.” What that means is the brand is not even close to being indispensable; rather it is always one mistake away from “I like you but I want to date other people.”
So how do you remain “a head over heels in like brand”?
First and foremost. Usefulness.
Yup. Pretty functional <and boring> but pretty essential. Some marketing expert folks call this the ‘price-value equation.’ Whatever. Just be clear about this. The moment your brand does not meet use expectations it has become dispensable. And people just won’t like you any more <that is bad>. That is why I made this first and foremost.
Second. Equal emotional engagement, i.e., do you like me as much as I like you?
True brands have emotional things attached to the functional usefulness. To make it an ongoing relationship both sides have to communicate the emotion. Buyers do it with dollars and displaying your logo. Sellers do it … well … with whatever may match the emotional relationship.
Here is what I mean (let me be a guy for a moment). While I could give “things” to someone I date all the time nothing trumps a good “hey … I love you” in words. Oh. And the love is reciprocated in some way. Hey. Does that mean all gifts (i.e., loyalty programs, promotions, etc.) are unnecessary? Nope. It’s balance. Buyers & sellers need some balance to maintain the emotional aspect of the relationship. Gifts are part of it and words are part of it and … well .. just as with any relationship … there is are lots of moving parts. But both have to believe it is worth it and it’s not just ‘wooing’ (I wanted to type that word) by the seller all the time.
Hey.
If you read any of my other stuff you will see a strong thread of “dreamer” (or belief in aspirational) objectives in my belief infrastructure. I like thinking big <personally and in business>. I like dreaming. And believe it has value in organizational management. But, with ‘brands? I just struggle with “indispensable.”
No. I do not struggle … I just do not buy it.
Just a last thought on this.
I do think of brands as marriages.
Think of it this way … in a ‘courting phase’ I believe it is unhealthy for one to try and make themselves look indispensable in seeking a long term relationship. In addition I also tend to believe if one partner purposefully seeks to be indispensable in a relationship it is unhealthy.
Great marriages are some give and take. Some communication. Some respect. And the understanding that you are “right” for each other and imperfections … well … can make it a perfect fit.
And I also believe the moment one partner feels indispensable things are out of whack. But, hey, I am no Dr. Phil. And I am no “Brand Expert.” This is just my opinion.
I talk with them about what it takes to be successful in a career (and life).
My favorite topic to discuss is “character.”
I describe it as a fork in the road. Okay. A shitload of forks in the road.
A moment, or moments, where you have a choice which helps define who you will be moving forward in life.
I ceratainly never mean to suggest I know “the right path” … all I mean I that we all have choices to do “the right thing” or “the wrong thing” and those types of decisions go a long way to defining “once and for all who you are.”
The other thing I happen to mention which I oddly enough learned in the advertising world … each moment matters.
If you find an excuse to not do what is best one moment … well … the next moment is even easier to not do the right thing -… and then the next thing you know you are on the slippery slope and you cannot get off.
Anyway.
This is a Life truth. And don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.
“If you spent your life concentrating on what everyone else thought of you, would you forget who you really were? What if the face you showed the world turned out to be a mask… with nothing beneath it?”
—–
Jodi Picoult
============
Ok.
Thoughtful reimaging as a way to reinvigorate sales (lets call it smart branding).
As the concept we labeled as branding starts moving into its next generation, we need to start looking at all those brands we did such a nice job of creating and figuring out what to do with all that smart thinking we did back then.
All the hype around branding created hundreds of books and “how to’s,” leading to a lot of brands that really are hitting the wall today. By seeking that Holy Grail, many brands began walking down a great looking path that is now reaching a dead end.
The truth? It is quite possible that we in the marketing world simply over thought (heresy…I know) that which was a quite simple and tried and true marketing concept (just not called branding) instilled in us by marketing greats like David Ogilvy, Stanley Resor, Rosser Reeves(i.e. the real Don Draper) etc.
What did they suggest?
Say one thing. Say it well.
Too often we in the marketing business feel like we need to re-invent to be successful – or maybe it is a silly belief we need to make it sound new.
Regardless, brand ‘reinvention’ sometimes is not the best path.
Oftentimes it is more about reintroducing a quality or characteristic of the brand that maybe even the brand has forgotten about. What I mean by this is we need to reach inside the brand/company body and find a core value, or character trait, that a new generation of shoppers & users find relevant.
Because that is what reimaging is really about … making your brand likeable from an emotional standpoint. How often do you hear a younger generation … and by younger that could be a Gen-Xer < say a 40ish and not a tween> say ‘oh, that is a brand my parents loved’ as an excuse to not consider, rather than some rational decision?
Most brands that cross generations have solved the rational truths (heck … they have to at least meet their buyers’ basic needs or they would have died by now anyway).
Maybe it is simply about reawakening the soul of the brand. That sounds a little esoteric but aren’t most relationships based on something more than rational things? Soul mates and such.
Okay.
With all that said. Where should thoughtful reimaging be appropriate? If the original brand premise is solid and well thought out, then this idea should apply mostly to companies who have maybe been in business for over 20 years or so. And in fact, in theory the older the company the better the reimaging opportunity.
Once again. Let me be clear on this … what do I mean by Re-imaging?
Making a brand/company relevant once again to a new generation of buyers.
Good brand insight (inner truth insights) thinking typically generates the most creative insights for these types of companies.
Okay.
Let me take a minute and talk about Thoughtful Reimaging.
Thoughtful reimaging is about revitalizing an existing brand or company. You could say it is about breathing new life into a brand. Maybe even better said to a client is “hey, your customer base is getting old and new customers are gravitating to other brands, we need to refresh your image to make you appealing to them. But, hey, this doesn’t mean we are going to ask you to change. We just simply need to find a characteristic, part of the soul of the company or brand, and reintroduce you to people. It’s not about changing or reinventing yourself. It is more about showing people another side of your personality. It is more about your brand that we can showcase to these new potential buyers so they recognize you as a choice.”
Bottom line.
Reimaging is not about re-inventing yourself, but rather assembling characteristics or attributes and then repackaging them, or highlighting something, to make people look at the company/brand in a different way. The means to successful reimaging 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 they were “liked” in the first place. That doesn’t mean we cannot ‘attach’ something new to existing attributes, it simply means that it is (1) easier if you leverage from something existing and (2) more believable if you use as many existing perceptions/attitudes as possible.
Okay.
No one said what I just stated would be easy. But it is certainly something worth doing well.
With all that said, a rebranding process should be designed to tear apart the fabric of the exiting company/brand, seeking (in order of priority):
the functional product/service offerings at the foundation (what is delivered day-in and day-out)
the origins of the company/brand or the origins of the vision
original business goals/objectives
existing perceptions and attributes
company infrastructure information (company construct which may affect the functional delivery day-in and day-out) – this includes any changes to that infrastructure now and in the past that may have affected perceptions/attitudes/satisfaction
desired perceptions & attitudes
desired business goals/objectives
The reason the last two items are the last priorities in the suggested process is because you should seek to find the ‘gap’ between where you were, where you are and ultimately where you want to be in order to assess the most effective & efficient path to reach your ultimate objective.
Writing a concept statement in the business world is like, well, turning the ignition key in a car.
It gets everything started.
The tricky part is that while you would tend to believe there is an accepted universal way of writing a concept statement … there isn’t. Every business place has their own version (or at least it seems so). What a bunch of wasted energy.
You end up spending so much time debating how to actually write the stupid thing you are too tired to invest the energy in the proper place … the thinking & writing of the statement itself.
That said … here is the best description of concept statement I have ever encountered (from the P&G marketing wizards). It isn’t, and shouldn’t be, brain surgery. Maybe that is what makes this definition so effective.
The following is a description of a concept statement founded in traditional P&G discipline.
A concept describes a product, service or brand and how it will improve a consumer’s life. A concept statement answers:
· Who is it for?
· How does it fit into their life?
· What will it do for them?
· Why should they believe you?
The concept is developed because through it, we can learn the best way to communicate an idea to the consumer, understand the idea’s importance to consumers, and determine the commercial viability of the idea.
The concept is part of the foundation for the brand. Along with the brand character, it contains key elements that are translated into a creative brief and a copy strategy. This consistent message is used across all forms of marketing communications—direct marketing, catalogues, television advertising, merchandising etc.
The ACB is a statement that expresses the target consumer’s frustration of an unmet need. The ACB should create a context or perspective for the rest of the concept (the benefit and RTB). It acknowledges the consumer’s point of view with understanding and empathy. Insights are gained into why the consumer does what she/he does.
Developing the ACBs is done through primary and secondary research, field work— store visits, home visits, and studying habits and practices, (attitudes, and needs and wants).
Examples of ACBs:
Dyed hair doesn’t look natural.
Stopping for gas takes too much time and interrupts my trip.
Soap dries my skin.
Benefit –“What’s in it for me?”
The benefit statement is a promise which answers the question: “What’s in it for me?”
The benefit fulfills the consumer need or want that was described in the ACB. Benefits can be tangible or emotional. They make the consumer’s life better and should be single-minded (more than one benefit in a concept can be confusing to consumers and is difficult to execute advertising against).
The benefit should be competitively distinct and important to the target customer.
Examples of benefits:
Crest™ makes dental checkups easier.
No more embarrassing static cling with Bounce™.
Have it your way at Burger King™.
Reason to Believe (RTB) – “Why should I believe you?”
The RTB provides permission for consumers to believe that the benefit will be delivered. It answers the question: “Why should I believe it?” The RTB can be a feature (unique ingredient or special process) or an endorsement. The brand equity also contributes to the RTB.