Posts tagged organizations
what is management?
May 21st
Posted by Bruce in Business Thoughts
“Responsibility for one’s impacts is the oldest principle of the law” – Peter Drucker (New Realities, 1989, p. 87)
To me, in today’s business, manager management training is woefully lacking. Training simply equals “results” <with an additional emphasis on doing it while being politically correct and appropriately sensitive – to avoid litigation>.
And, no, I don’t believe this is a generational ‘thing.’
In other words I hear a lot of people suggest this upcoming generation of managers always needs to be told exactly what to do and what expectations are …well … in general I don’t agree. But even if I did those people are being told “results.”
It is the easiest (laziest) way to outline expectations.
To be fair to the lazy guidance organizations (or enterprises as Drucker calls them) … the enterprise also focuses on “results.” That ultimately translates into the fact you can be the biggest jerk manager in the world, the most anti social manager, one who exhibits gobs of poor management (team leadership skills) … but if you generate the enterprise holy grail <results> … well…then you are an “effective manager.”
And the fallback statement is almost always “not everyone is going to like you” as justification to answer the question of whether that person is ‘good manager material’ as everyone immediately points to ‘results achieved.’
Ok.
It’s bullshit.
And I know its bullshit.
And when your television and internet is lost for 4 days, and even though you may not be a heavy tv viewer, you end up having time to think and do things. So I ended up pulling a book off the shelf I haven’t read in a while. Peter Drucker’s “the new realities” from 1989. I have another post coming up inspired from the rereading but Drucker does a great job of simply outlining “what is management.”. And I have to tell you that a lot of us managers would do well to reread this book. And reread all early Drucker while you are at it. Oh. And company owners should too (by the way …they are also Management in case they have forgotten).
As P. Druddy <as Drucker was called by his closest friends> said:
Management has to be accountable for performance. But how is performance defined? How is it to be measured? How should it be enforced? And to whom should management be accountable? Management needs to face the fact they represent power and power has to be accountable … and it has to be legitimate <he means to a greater social good>. Management has to face up to the fact that they matter <in a societal responsibility way>.
What is management?
Is it a bag of techniques and tricks? A bundle of analytical tools like those taught n business schools? There are important as a thermometer and anatomy is important to a physician. But the evolution and history of management, its successes as well as its problems, teach that management is above all else a very few essential principles:
- Management is about human beings. The task is to make people capable of join performance, to make their strengths effective and their weaknesses irrelevant. We depend upon management for our livelihoods. And our ability to contribute to society also depends on management of the organizations in which we work as it does on our own skills, dedication and effort.
- Because management deals with the integration of people in a common venture it is deeply embedded in culture. What managers do in Germany, United Kingdom, United states, Japan or Brazil is exactly the same. How they do it may be quite different. This one of the basic challenges managers face is to find and identify those parts of their own tradition, history and culture that can be used as management building blocks. Every enterprise requires commitment to common goals and shared values. Without such commitment there is no enterprise, there is only a mob. The enterprise must have simple clear and unifying objectives. The mission of the organization has to be clear enough and big enough to provide common vision. The goals that embody it have to be clear, public and constantly reaffirmed. Management’s first job is to think through, set, and exemplify those objectives, values and goals.
- Management must enable the enterprise and each of its members to grow and develop as needs and opportunities change. Every enterprise is a learning and teaching institution. Training and development must be built into it on all levels – training and development that never stop. 
- Every enterprise is composed of people with different skills and knowledge doing many different toes of work. It must be built on communication and on individual responsibility All members need to think through what they aim to accomplish and make sure their associates know and understand that aim. All have to think through what they owe others and make sure that others understand. All have to think through what they need from others and make sure that others know what is expected of them.
- Neither the quantity of output not the ‘bottom line’ is by itself an adequate measure of the performance of management and enterprise. Market standing (brand & reputation), innovation, production, development of people, quality, financial results are all crucial to an organizations performance and to its survival. Just as a human being needs a diversity of measures to assess his or her health and performance an organization needs a diversity of measures to assess its health and performance.
- Finally, the single most important thing to remember about any enterprise is that results exist only on the outside. The result f a business is a satisfied customer. The result of a healthy organization is a contribution to society. The result of a hospital is a healthy patient. The result of a school is a student who has learned something and puts it into practice at some later date. Inside an enterprise there are only costs.
Some thoughts <from me>.
While there are some gems I may come back to at some point … like “without such a commitment you only have a mob” and “make their strengths effective and their weaknesses irrelevant” … here are my rant-like thoughts:
• “individual responsibility.” Hmmmmmmmmmmmm it seems like we abuse this in today’s business world. We want to “empower employees” and expect them to assume “proactive individual responsibility” and yet we are not fulfilling some of Drucker’s other principles. Where is our responsibility to them? Where is the training? Where is the development? It seems to me that responsibility goes both ways <and, no, it is not just a paycheck from management side> and to ask one without offering the other is a medieval serf mentality.
• Organization ‘health’ …. When is the last time you heard this discussed in in anything other than financials (or some derivative of financials)? I cannot remember the last time anyone discussed culture and/or people’s true happiness as a measure of organization health … well … at least until maybe ‘we have hit the numbers.’
That said. “Management is about human beings.” Ok. Nowhere in that sentence do I see “numbers,” “results” or “profitability”. Am I foolish enough to believe that those three things aren’t important? Nope <I am foolish in other ways>. But his point is subtle. Maybe too subtle. If you manage the human beings well, effectively and they are happy, those three little words he excluded from that sentence will happen. THAT is why the sentence reads “management is about human beings.”
And.
I love the last thought.
The truly important problems managers face do not come from technology or politics; they do not originate outside of management and enterprise. Think about that …
“They are problems caused by the very success of the management itself.”
Drucker is actually suggesting that success breeds problems. How about that? What a great point. A point I am relatively sure that today’s managers do not think of. Today it seems like success breeds “process everyone should follow.”
Anyway.
Ignore my comments if you would like.
But don’t ignore Drucker’s comments.
life formulas
May 9th
Posted by Bruce in Personal & Nonsensical
Life is not as simple as it seems. Or maybe it isn’t as complicated as it seems.
Shit.
Maybe its both … at exactly the same time.
I cannot remember where I found all these awesome “life formulas” but I love the way they take complex life things and simplify them into basic equations (note: I apologize to the creator for not being able to source).
And in their incredibly obvious simplicity there is a nuanced complexity that makes you think about the truth they contain.
The first one I ever saw was the truth equation.
Truth. What I think happened divided by what really happened.
Brilliant.
It got to the core truth behind … well … truth. And it makes you wonder a little why there isn’t a class somewhere in maybe high school where they teach you stuff like this. Or at least make you think like this. It may seem silly at first glance but it is a really interesting exercise.
And back to truth?
What you think divided by what really happened.
By dividing it can equal, diminish what you think or actually be bigger by such a margin it actually marginalizes what you originally thought.
Awesome.
And when I see Life defined by formulas like this I begin to think about what makes 100%.
Well.
It actually made me begin by thinking about “giving 110%.” Which is actually kind of silly when you think about it. Is it really possible to actually give more than 100%? <no>
And what the hell is more than 100%? (unless you are bionic you cannot answer that)
I do know as I think about this 110% thing it makes some want to bring one of these formulas along with me to a meeting and if someone suggests you to give over 100% (that infamous 110%) maybe I would force them to show us how to do just that mathematically.
When someone does say that … aren’t they really saying “give me 100% <because I know you are juggling things and I need you to focus on this>.”
So why can’t we just tell the truth and say “c’mon … its not extra effort … its just focus. Focus 100% on this.” <albeit it doesn’t sound as inspiring or leader like or gung ho-ish … yeah … I just typed ‘ho-ish’>.
Anyway.
From there I actually began thinking about the whole 100% we are supposed to give in life.
100% is tricky. Is it defined by effort, focus, the best of our abilities or the best we can do <at that time>?
Whew. Now THERE are some choices for ya.
Life is a constant juggling game <or a balancing act>. There’s always balancing that needs to be done. And there are always tradeoffs.
Ah.
But.
I think there is a difference between juggling and balancing.
Juggling is all about keeping track of a bunch of things … all up in the air.
Balancing is all about … well … balancing … evening things out.
It seems to me that is one is more controlled chaos-like <juggling> … and the other is a more prioritizing of actions <balancing>.
Wow. Makes me think of whether I am a juggler or a balancer. And that makes my head hurt.
Regardless.
Aw. Anyway <quit babbling Bruce>.
There is a simplicity that these formulas give us in thinking about life.
Disappointment being expectation divided by reality.
- Which suggests it is our own inability to manage our expectations that create a sense of disappointment. Makes you think a little, huh?
Shock being expectation minus expectation.
- The unequivocalness <that isn’t really a word> of this is brilliant.
Modern art being the belief you could do it plus the fact you didn’t.
- The formula nicely builds, instead of divides or subtracts, to heighten the value
The slight cynicism built into diamonds being forever … balanced by whether you are a jewel thief (awesome)
Oh.
And obligation.
This one is fabulous.
Starts with do. Just the action itself. Add on “the right thing” so value increases by doing the right thing … and then plus or minus the amount of guilt.
Very very nice.
I actually see a great class session for young people somewhere in this life formula idea. The ability to simplify the challenges, the decisions, the actions in life into equations. It is a nice way to be able to point out some complex critical thinking in life.
In the end, while it may seem silly, I think it is a good and interesting exercise.
Particularly if you are juggling, or balancing, a bunch of crap and making so many judgment calls your head seem like it is going to explode … these simple formulas, in a really weird way, provide perspective.
Maybe you have an obligation to give this a shot if you feel overwhelmed with life.
Because maybe, in their simplicity, maybe you find more balance.
And that … I am pretty sure in my pea like brain … is a good thing.
finagle’s Law
Apr 30th
Posted by Bruce in Business Thoughts
Well. I imagine I am way behind the rest of the cool people <who already know what finagle’s law is> but I just discovered it. Maybe because I had always known it as Murphy’s Law.
The generalized or `folk’ version of Murphy’s Law, fully named “Finagle’s Law of Dynamic Negatives” and usually rendered “Anything that can go wrong, will” (source: Urban Dictionary)
Finagle’s Law comes from science fiction author Larry Niven who, in several stories, depicted a frontier culture which celebrated a religion <or a running joke> which involved the worship of the dread god Finagle … and his mad prophet Murphy <hence the source of ‘murphy’s law’>.
Ok. About Finagles ´Law <before I get to the point of this little writeup>. It is an amazingly cool extraordinary mixture of cruel logic … as well as somewhat scarily indicative of everyday life. Just in case you didn’t know here is Finagle’s logic:
- What we have is not what we need.
- What we want is not what we need.
- What we need is impossible to get.
- You can get hold of this information for a much higher price then you are prepared to pay.
Ok. Here is the coolest thought. One of my favorite blogs, 50topmodels, actually wondered if Finagle´s Law got it all wrong and reexamined it as … Yhprum´s Law (Yhprum is Murphy backwards).
They actually analyzed it under the theory that ‘everything that can work, will work’ quoting Richard Zeckhauser <Harvard> “sometimes systems that should not work, work nevertheless.“
Ok. It is that last thought that made me sit up and think and decide to write.
Why?
Well. “Systems that should not work …do.” How often do people design perfect systems in the workplace, under the guise of ‘this is the way its done’ and, ultimately, it is just another inefficient process & system? Or maybe it is easy to do so everyone just does things going through the motions? Or the perfect system is <gasp> measured on its efficiency and therefore everyone simply tries to ‘hit the measurement numbers”?
On the other hand.
Someone else builds a system and has everyone working within this system that has those ‘people who designed perfect systems’ scratching their heads and saying that will never work … and, uh oh, it does work.
Yhprum´s Law. Huh? Well. Organizations are living organisms.
And just as placebos can work (lets call that the power of the mind) … a system that should not work … well … does. Why?
Because whether things work or not is often up to the people. And people are inconsistent in that they consistently do unexpectedly great things. In addition sometimes mistakes become stepping stones to blinding success. Oh. And the systems that shouldn’t work gain significant improvements thru some trial & error while the perfect systems remain … well … stagnant – never improving. Maybe it is that last thought that is so controversial in my thinking.
Perfection is often a thief. It steals fresh thinking.
Business, in general, like life, is messy. Sure. We seek perfection. It is kind of like the holy grail of ‘job well done.’
Here is the funny thing about attaining perfection.
Realistically we should be seeking to immediately change, rather than replicate, if we actually stumble upon it. ‘Doing it right’ is simply a level. And attaining levels of ‘perfection’ is good but also breeds an aspect of complacency or rote. And unless you are putting together a car, or a bomb <as an example>, in my mind we should always be aware the process is a means to an end.
Another sad thing about perfection. Nothing is ever really perfect. So when we put the label on something we are already in a bad place. As noted in alternative phrases for Finagle’s Law … let’s maybe call it “not quite the right thing.” It seems to me that systems & process reside most often closest to that phrase. And to a perfectionist that is bad and to others it is just not quite the right thing.
Ok. As for systems that shouldn’t work? the imperfect systems? The power of the mind suggest that everything that can work will work … sometimes better than others.
Oh.
And if you have that attitude .. an attitude to, rather than finding the flaws, instead focusing on the mistakes made … in my mind you end up seeking to better the system.
Ok. Moving on.
There is another aspect to Murphy’s Law … “If there are two or more ways to do something, and one of those ways can result in a catastrophe, then someone will do it.”
Now. If you think about that from a logic perspective … this suggests <for example> that if someone plugs in a toaster backwards and it fries itself, the problem isn’t just that some idiot plugged it in backward, but that it was able to be plugged in backwards in the first place.
In other words … the flaw isn’t in the person … but rather the design. And people just make mistakes <and are not flawed>.
If you believe that … then maybe when mistakes are made we shouldn’t be blaming people but rather seeking to design a better system. Not ‘perfect’ systems but systems with the minimum opportunity for flaws. Call it constant improvement.
If you don’t believe that then you end up simply assuming people will make mistakes, some big … some small … some stupid <or some derivative of stupid> … some smart <yeah … you can still do something really smart and make a mistake>. As I stated earlier … systems are a means to an end therefore using Finagle’s Law everyone should be focusing more on the people aspect. And not in a “you suck” perspective but rather a deeper understanding for why and how mistakes are made.
Mistakes are part of life.
I actually believe more managers should have the chart above in their offices and when mistakes are made identify which aspect the mistake characterizes. It may make us better managers and it may make for better systems (and certainly better managers of people).
Anyway.
The true Finagle’s Law is much more twisted than “anything that can go wrong will go wrong.” The Law also allows for things going well. It’s like as if the universe is merely lulling you into a false sense of security before proceeding to screw you. It also allows for things that can’t go wrong … going wrong <and within Finagle’s Law this counts as Gone Horribly Right.>
Regardless.To end this I wanted to share some last thoughts on Finagle’s Law. The law owes its existence more or less entirely to the Rule of Drama, and is especially common in Crapsack Worlds where things that do go wrong tend to go wrong in the worst possible way.
Finagle’s Law also suggests that Life has a pretty warped sense of humor in that it is obsessed with making your life as difficult and humiliating as possible.
On a slightly serious note … I imagine the potential for danger in everyday Life, within the Law, can do one of two things:
- make you scared to do anything
- make you assume that you cannot ever do anything right
I could write gobs about both of those but instead I am hoping that what I have written about Finagle’s Law suggests that successfully navigating Life takes some flexibility. If perfection is your thing … well … Finagle will be your constant companion and friend.
Take Life with a grain of salt. Things go wrong. Even when they aren’t supposed to. And things go right. Even when they aren’t supposed to.
Last. And just so you are fully aware of ‘the Law’ here are optional expressions of Finagle’s Law <so you recognize them>:
- A Simple Plan
- Butterfly of Doom
- Consolation Backfire
- Cosmic Plaything
- Disaster Dominoes
- Destructive Saviour
- Deus Angst Machina when taken Up to Eleven
- Everything Trying to Kill You in videogames
- Failsafe Failure
- Failure Is the Only Option
- The Fun in Funeral
- Gave Up Too Soon
- Law of Disproportionate Response
- Inverse Law of Utility and Lethality
- It Got Worse
- Magnum Opus Dissonance
- Mistimed Revival
- Murphy’s Bed
- Murphy’s Bullet
- My Car Hates Me
- Not Quite The Right Thing
- Out with a Bang
- Phlebotinum Breakdown
- Ashes to Crashes
- Doomed New Clothes
- Watch the Paint Job
- The Precious, Precious Car
- Random Number God
- Retirony
- Springtime for Hitler
- Tempting Fate
- Unspoken Plan Guarantee
- Useless Superpowers
- What Could Possibly Go Wrong?
- You Can’t Thwart Stage One
- Your Princess is in Another Castle
Anyway.
Finagle’s Law. Murphy’s Law. Or. My favorite? “Not quite the right thing.” Life is perfectly imperfect. You can either accept it or end up in a loony bin some day.
that I have not been
Apr 25th
Posted by Bruce in Favorite Quotes
“’pray for nothing, say every night in bed, I have been a king, I have been a slave, nor is there anything, fool, rascal, knave, that I have not been, yet upon my breast a myriad of hearts have lain.” Mohini Chatterjee by Yeats
If I had not known that Yeats was enamored with mysticism and reincarnation I … well … would have ended up writing what I am going to write.
My first thought?
It has to do with living life however the cards are dealt … and regardless of whether you are a fool or an intellect … you will find someone ‘upon your breast will lay’ <that means you will have love & loves>.
I like that.
Doesn’t matter who you are and what you do … there will always be someone for you.
Oh.
And beyond having someone love you <assuming you allow it and you stop worrying about whether you are good enough> … there is a really big thought in there that there are lives within lives … and I imagine another way of saying that is … you can live several lives within one lifetime.
That’s what I think when I read this.
That’s a lot but I think it is a lot of good stuff.
Yeats wrote a lot about his belief that the soul of man is eternal. And that existence is cycles within cycles. I may not buy that whole “eternal” thing but I do believe that Life is cycles within cycles. It really only has one true beginning and end … but multiple starts and stops … and detours and exits … and … well … you get it. Cycles within cycles.
With that in mind I wanted to end this post with the conclusion of the poem used in the beginning … “men dance on deathless feet.”
Birth-hour and death-hour meet,
Or, as great sages say,
Men dance on deathless feet.
Now that is awesome.
You are either living or dying.
But your footsteps on Life will never die.
Oh.
One last thought <regarding this quote>.
If you truly believe that you live many lives within one life … well … then isn’t it worth setting aside desire and ambition as secondary to whatever type of life you want to lead?
Let me leave you with that thought.
spinal tap marketing
Apr 23rd
Posted by Bruce in Business Thoughts
Ok.
This is about the senseless marketing inflation that is becoming prevalent in the marketing world and I am going to use the movie Spinal Tap to show how bad it is.
Just in case you don’t remember the movie Spinal Tap, or the moment I am going to reference, here it is:
“Our speakers no longer just go to ten … they go to 11! Well, it’s one louder, isn’t it? It’s not 10. You see, most blokes, you know, will be playing at 10. You’re on 10 here, all the way up, all the way up, all the way up, you’re on 10 on your guitar. Where can you go from there? Where?”
<Nigel Tufnel, explaining why his amp goes up to 11>
Here’s the deal. Look around at some marketing these days. If you are kind you will call it ‘value inflation’ … if you aren’t kind it is puffery.
And good ole The Economist actually gave me some great fodder in a recent edition (so I am going to steal some of their words shamelessly).
Their article showcased an aspect of how marketing is inflating everything.
Marketing inflation?
- Take the grossly underreported problem of “size inflation”, where clothes of any particular labelled size have steadily expanded over time. Estimates by The Economist suggest that the average British size 14 pair of women’s trousers is now more than four inches wider at the waist than it was in the 1970s. In other words, today’s size 14 is really what used to be labelled a size 18; a size 10 is really a size 14. (American sizing is different, but the trend is largely the same.) Fashion firms seem to think that women are more likely to spend if they can happily squeeze into a smaller label size.
- Inflation is also distorting the travel business. A five-star hotel used to mean the ultimate in luxury, but now six- and seven-star resorts are popping up as new hotels award themselves inflated ratings as a marketing tool. “Deluxe” rooms have been devalued, too: many hotels no longer have “standard” rooms, but instead offer a choice of “deluxe” (the new standard), “luxury”, “superior luxury” or “grand superior luxury”. Likewise, most airlines no longer talk about “economy” class. British Airways instead offers World Traveller; Air France has Voyageur. Sardine class would be more honest. The value of frequent-flyer miles is also being eroded by inflation: it is increasingly hard to book “free” flights; they cost more miles, and redemption fees have increased. This was inevitable: airlines have been issuing so many miles (for spending on the ground as well as in the air) that the total stock is worth more than all the dollar notes and coins in circulation.
- Food-portion inflation has also made it harder to fight the flab. Pizzas now come in regular, large and very large. Starbucks coffees are Tall, Grande, Venti or (soon) Trenta. “Small” seems to be a forbidden word.
I believe this shameless hyperbole has become a plague in marketing. It is puffery at its worst.
And it is shameful for 2, among many, reasons:
- It inspires confusion.
Confusion in that the value equation has been disrupted. Marketers have assumed we will value a ‘7 star’ over a ‘5 star’ because … well … it has more stars. Instead marketers have simply devalued an individual star to a point people are so confused they simply assess value on their own. Oh. And by doing THAT people will inevitably focus on the wrong things (commodity attributes & price). Confusion is bad in marketing.
- In inspires distrust.
Because in the act of building false value <under the guise of differentiation> we are discrediting what we actually do. Inevitably this makes people basically lose trust in what we say. With the lack of trust marketers have no value to people … leading to simply ignoring or tuning out any messaging. Oh. And if marketers have no value then why have them? Regardless. No one is clear what is the ‘truth.’ And when that happens they disregard what is being said and simply ignore it. And ignore it for what it really is <as a truth> hyperbole.
Oh.
And it is shameful because it is lazy. Yes. Lazy. I fully admit that it is significantly harder to discern what is really true in today’s world. But that is no excuse for marketers. In fact rather than try to take the ‘easy road’ <albeit the road with some horrible long term repercussions> marketers should be focusing on the more difficult road – truth.
Anyway. Back to the spinal tap marketing issue. The Economist suggests it is a form of inflation.
I am less kind.
It is hyperbole. And the worst kind. Because we are trying to skew what people think by stretching the truth <is that lying?>.
Lying sounds harsh but what else do we call it when we ‘create’ differentiation.
I fully understand that marketers need to respond to the market in order to help ‘sell their stuff.’ In this case this bad marketing behavior was exhibited in response to a couple of trends as identified by trendwatching – Mass Class and its opposite trend Massclusivity.
Increasing general prosperity spawned millions of new consumers interested in copying the tastes and preferences of the ‘rich & famous.’ This meant that manufacturers jumped on the enormous economies of scale as represented by this new mass of consumers by imitating the best of the best with lower cost alternatives. In some cases they imitated well. in other cases they simply imitated … with a lesser product. Regardless of their true quality, or non-quality, they imitated. And in doing so ultimately lowered the value of that which actually deserved the value.
This trend also spawned the next level called Massclusivity. Offering a level of privilege or status to the masses. Unfortunately it most likely offered neither privilege nor status to the traditional old style upper middle class.
So. In order to try and solve the problem marketers started ‘creating value’ in these absurd ways. The real problem? The imitators did it as well as the ‘real quality value’ providers. The imitators, in their falseness, blurred value.
It is too late but one would have wished that marketers would have been strong enough to stand up to the false imitators and stopped the problem before it began. But I imagine that means the marketing ‘hacks’ would have left money on the table and missed out on their opportunity for personal prosperity.
Oh well.
Marty DiBergi: David St. Hubbins… I must admit I’ve never heard anybody with that name.
David St. Hubbins: It’s an unusual name, well, he was an unusual saint, he’s not a very well known saint.
Marty DiBergi: Oh, there actually is, uh… there was a Saint Hubbins?
David St. Hubbins: That’s right, yes.
Marty DiBergi: What was he the saint of?
David St. Hubbins: He was the patron saint of quality footwear.
An entirely different level is of absurdity is that marketers also create spokespeople for random products & services hoping that they embody some type of credibility. In the attempt at borrowed interest the marketer simply gains a lack of believability. Ok. Good intentions … bad result.
Hopefully it never becomes as absurd as a ‘patron saint of quality footwear.’
And, yes, even beyond the spokespeople endorsers … it all becomes absurd at some point.
And in its absurdity it actually devalues everything it come in contact with <the second most disturbing would be the devaluing of trust>. The foremost disturbing is that it distorts behavior because so many people are confused they aren’t sure what is actually the best thing to do <because inflating thru marketing suggest there is no real ‘best’ alternative>.
I imagine to be fair to those in marketing it appears this senseless inflation is prevalent throughout society.
There is grade inflation, the tendency for comparable academic performance to be awarded higher grades over time. In Britain the proportion of A-level students given “A” grades has risen from 9% to 27% over the past 25 years. Yet other tests find that children are no cleverer than they were. A study by Durham University concluded that an A grade today is the equivalent of a C in the 1980s. In American universities almost 45% of graduates now get the top grade, compared with 15% in 1960. Grade inflation makes students feel better about themselves, but because the highest grade is fixed, it also causes grade compression, which distorts relative prices. This is unfair to the brightest, whose grades are devalued against those of average students. It also makes it harder for employers to identify the best applicants.
There is job title inflation, where a fancier-sounding title is cheaper than a pay raise. Companies now have an excess of chiefs and directors. Job title inflation has economic costs if it makes it more difficult to assess proper compensation for skills.
Anyway.
Now that I have been fair to marketing people I will suggest it is no excuse.
I have already mentioned the professional laziness.
But, the bigger issue is that marketing, in many ways, can influence society and attitudes and ultimately behavior.
Marketing can lead.
Marketing has in fact a responsibility to lead society. Inflation is ultimately a value equation. If marketing establishes non-absurd value equations attitudes are established.
I know it seems absurd that I wrote a serious piece about marketing using Spinal Tap.
But it moves beyond absurdity with me when I realize I can write a serious piece on marketing using Spinal Tap as an example.
It disturbs me.
Which leads me to the close:
“It does disturb me, but I rise above it. I’m a professional” – Nigel
Trying to inflate value simply means we devalue what really is.
And if marketing does it ultimately it establishes a devalued benchmark. Yeah … yeah … yeah … some smartass is going to suggest that marketing is establishing a ‘new value economy.’
Baloney.
It is simply devaluing the existing one.
turn your back on what you know
Apr 20th
Posted by Bruce in Business Thoughts
“To truly learn turn your back on what you know … leave it all behind.
To truly know the world you must immerse yourself in what is not your knowledge.” – Tibetan thought
Oh my.
Immerse yourself in what is not your knowledge.
That may be one of the most difficult things in the world to do.
It is natural to gravitate to what is most comfortable … that which you know and that which is the easiest for you to do.
I imagine many of us do this just as part of every day life and tell ourselves we are still learning as we bump into others who do something different and watch from afar.
But that is having one foot in what you know and maybe dipping a toe into what you don’t.
That isn’t truly ‘learning.’
At some point in order to truly learn you must … well … leave it all behind.
And that is difficult. Really difficult.
I know I cheat. How? I use young people. I try and place the situation in their hands, step back and listen. And I don’t judge <or eliminate possibilities>. It is my way of ‘immersing in what is not your knowledge.’ In their inexperience <within my own experience> they share a world of experiences in which I have no knowledge.
Oh.
I may think I do. But I don’t. It is a difficult thing for most of us to do … turn your back on what you know.
But I find it easier as long as I keep this other Tibetan thought in mind:
“Is being an investigator the opposite of being an artist? Maybe it is just that some mysteries require an artist not an investigator. That an artist has different ways to get to the truth.” – Tibetan thought
The path to truth is not just one path. Sure. I may know one ‘truth.’ But in knowing that I know … well … one thing. And I am sure many people are fine with the knowledge of one truth. And I do not begrudge them of that. For one truth is, at its core, a truth. And I believe everyone needs some truth in their life.
Does knowing more than one truth make someone better? Yikes. I don’t believe I could be a good judge of that. Because knowing multiple truths can be confusing … and in confusion someone just may not end up in a better place. I guess I would suggest that if multiple truths put you on more solid ground than go for it.
But the real point to this is that someone without YOUR knowledge is more likely to teach you something completely new than someone who shares your knowledge.
And, ultimately, if you are trying to understand the world, or simply solve a problem, to truly learn the answer … you may have to turn your back on everything you know.
what will become of us?
Apr 13th
Posted by Bruce in Favorite Quotes
“because of you the days to come will be better than the days before this one.”
So.
I have been participating in another TED discussion with regard to the youth and education and a distressingly pessimistic view of who they will be and what they will become <a post/rant/observation is forthcoming on that soon>. That discussion has certainly made me sit back and think. And much of it has also clearly brought to the forefront why the project global generation web based education initiative has not gained traction.
Anyway. All the pessimism reminded me of something I had read.
Because sometimes you read something that is almost so perfect that you want to store it away and use yourself at some later date.
Thankfully I have a blog where I can write them down and post them so when I want to use it I can just send someone a link.
This is about telling a child what they can expect from life.
What will become of us? (asked the children to her mother) …
—-
“What I imagine is that you will live magnificent lives.
And that you will live lives of quiet disappointment.
You won’t be able to explain why. But there will always be some failure. You will strive for greatness and justice and you will help to make our nation wondrous.
You will be great but you will also fail at many of the things dearest to you.
And people – even ones you love – will disappoint you.
You will know great loves and you will have dear friends and you will be part of something bigger than you.
You will never be alone. And yet some of those you hold dearest will betray you, envy you over things they perceive you have that they do not. At times – even within a crowd and noise – you will feel strangely lost.
You will find gifts that are special to you but you will never understand why such things were thrust upon you.
You may curse the world for always spinning never pausing and yet this motion will be the music to which you dance.
In the end, I hope, you will come to feel that none of the life you lead could have been any different, any better or worse. You will find meaning in accepting many things you cannot understand or change. And if you live a long life you will grow tired and that will be alright because you will have done the best you can do during your lives.
You will take into the future all that has ever been for us. Because of you the days to come will be better than the days before this one.” – Mena Akaran
Can you ever imagine telling a child anything better?
“because of you the days to come will be better than the days before this one.”
Every child should hear this.
And, frankly, I wish more people would feel this way about our youth rather than bitching about what they are not or what they cannot do.
judgment
Mar 28th
Posted by Bruce in Favorite Quotes
“Statistics are no substitute for judgment.” - Henry Clay
I was tempted to call this “when statistics get in the way of a good decision.”
Let me get this out of the way upfront. I like numbers. I have an Economics undergraduate and accounting accounted for several of my good grades in college. And I like that if you weave your way through numbers they can tell you things that can inspire the ‘real’ thought. And I like the fact that numbers can sway an “I think” based opinion to a “here is what I know” based opinion.
Anyway. I purposefully used Henry Clay (so think maybe 1800 as to date of the quote) so that some contemporary statistical gwonk doesn’t come out of the woodwork saying something along the lines of “statistics have only evolved in the last 20 years” or something crazy like that. “We have never had better data to make decisions from than today!” is a statement that was as true in 1800 as it is in 2012 and as it was in 100 BC.
This is an eternal issue.
People have looked at statistics since the time good ole Adam started calculating how many apples fell out of the tree to figure out how often he was gonna get laid.
Henry Clay just had the luck to be quoted on it.
So before I begin my rant let me say, yes, I get decision-making is a cognitive process … where the outcome is a choice between alternatives. And that numbers can play a role.
I also get that people have different preferences as to how to approach decision making and that there will always be a varying degree between thinking and feeling and numbers and experiential.
And I do believe all decisions, at least the worthwhile ones, have to incorporate some sense of logical decision-making. Logic in that we seek to exclude <or marginalize> emotions <as well as personal biases> and try to use only rational methods <perhaps even mathematical/statistical tools> with the intent to isolate what is typically called the decision utility.
I get all that.
Oh.
And by the way … I hope no one tries to dump the whole “left brain/right brain” mumbo jumbo on me because science has already proven that is an urban myth (yeah … I will write something on that). There is no right brain left brain.
There is no “numbers are facts” crap.
Yeah. On that last one ….
“Torture numbers, and they’ll confess to anything.” – Gregg Easterbrook
Numbers don’t lie.
But they also don’t tell you what to do. In saying that let me suggest why I believe this statistical ‘torturing numbers’ issue has been an issue for eternity.
The thought.
Many people who don’t want to make decision … okay … maybe they just get nervous with accountability … use statistics to make the decision … not inform a decision.
Why?
Well. There are boatloads of reasons but suffice it to say that without using numbers … you are getting paid (or at least judged) not just on decision-making skills but on your judgment skills. That means accountability is solely on you (the person).
Think about that. But also think about this (as you get judged). The following is an explanation on decision making using statistics:
Decision Making Under Uncertainty: Statistical Decision Theory
I’d like to start today’s lecture with a reminder about something I said a long time ago when we finished our survey of population viability analysis. Population viability analysis is best seen not as a way of garnering precise predictions about the fate of a population but as a way of ensuring that all relevant life-history variables have been considered, that they have been considered efficiently, and that we have a reasonable sense of the trajectory that the population is likely to follow if current trends continue. It provides a way of structuring our thinking about the problem. That’s precisely the way I think we should regard the approach to decision making that I’m about to describe. One of the most difficult tasks facing conservation biologists, as I have emphasized repeatedly, is that decisions must often, perhaps usually, be made in the face of woefully inadequate data.
(ba bla blaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa)
So.
From that incredibly dry mind numbing analysis of statistical decision theory they dropped this little bombshell in toward the end of the ‘how to use statistics’:
There is the recognition from statistics that there are two types of errors we can make in evaluating an hypothesis:
- We may say that something is happening when it isn’t (Type I), or
- We may say that something isn’t happening when it is (Type II).
Say what?
The capacity of the human mind for swallowing nonsense and spewing it forth in violent and repressive action has never yet been plumbed. – Robert Heinlein
(I wish I had written this in response to the statistical theory thingamajig)
Ok. What that means (to those of you solely dependent upon statistics). You may use the statistics to prove something is or isn’t happening … and it may not be happening or it is happening <anyone now wonder why statisticians are avoided?>.
Anyway. I will back off the ‘accountability through numbers folk’ for a second.
Trying to give statistical-using people the benefit of the doubt … let’s think that maybe when you are stressed out, frankly, any option seems pretty good … especially one which seems factual (numbers seem more factual to people … despite the fact that one you start combining them they become less factual).
I imagine it is like someone dying of thirst and drinking from whatever looks like the safest pool.
Uh oh. But some pools are poisoned.
And, unfortunately bout this stress theory of mine, when the adrenaline from the stress wears out, you realized that the statistics you leaned on for the decision YOU made were all bullshit (or someone points out they were bullshit when you actually invest some energy trying to explain them later).
And you are screwed.
Because of statistics (although people will inevitably try the “but the numbers told us what to do”).
Ok.
Here is the good news (relatively speaking). You can do something about the stress decision making leaning on numbers thing.
Most people, given enough experience, become aware that stress can do a number on your decision-making skills. How do I know? Well. Of course someone has done a study on it.
Scientists have some statistical based thinking about exactly how stress screws up your ability to make decisions.
According to ScienceDaily, psychologists Mara Mather and Nichole R. Lighthall (who completed a review of the literature on stress and decisions) they found that, even though you’d think being stressed would turn people into pessimists and therefore more careful … stress actually makes us focus too much on the upside of our decisions.
Says Mather, “Stress seems to help people learn from positive feedback and impairs their learning from negative feedback.”
Uh oh.
That sucks (maybe you cannot do something about the bad stress decision making thing). Nuts.
I guess my point in bringing up the study is that maybe under stress it is easier to grab on to statistics to make a decision <all the while thinking positive thoughts> and therefore avoided the judgment call on your own.
Uh oh (again).
Look.
I was wrong. You can do something about this judgment thing.
Judgment isn’t easy … but at some point you are accountable … or you should be … and hiding behind statistics just won’t hack it.
As Yoda would say “the answers are within you.”
The key to making a smart decision is giving yourself the time to gather all the information you need <and, yes, that can include statistics> and move forward with whatever proactive thinking method approach you have some confidence in … and make a decision.
A daunting decision doesn’t have to put you in an analysis paralysis death grip.
Use a logical decision-making method to help you evaluate your choices and pull the trigger.
And make a decision.
And not let statistics make the decision for you.
Here is the net on statistics: It helps us formalize and categorize our thinking to make sure that we have considered all relevant possibilities.
Quantitative analysis should be viewed as explorations of possibilities … not hard predictions.
I believe being able to use numbers, and statistics, to explore possibilities is truly a skill <or an art>.
Not everyone can do it. Ok. Well. That’s not true. Anyone can do it … it’s just that not everyone can do it well.
Knowing what to do with the numbers is an art.
In fact, just to circle back to the main topic of this post, let’s call it … well … judgment.
Yeah. Judging numbers. Weighing the importance of one number versus another as well as learning which numbers are unimportant.
And there are even fewer people who have mastered that art.
But. That doesn’t mean everyone should get bogged down in statistics and numbers because if you do, yup, you can torture any decision you want out of numbers.
And, frankly, you are lying to yourself if you believe that is a decision. That is simply being a coward (in the decision making world).
You have deferred decision to ‘numbers.’ And inevitably you are deferring accountability.
Sound harsh?
As harsh as this?
“I notice increasing reluctance on the part of marketing executives to use judgment; they are coming to rely too much on research, and they use it as a drunkard uses a lamp post for support, rather than for illumination.” - David Ogilvy
Harsh.
Sound like truth?
Yup.
marketing is evil?
Mar 27th
Posted by Bruce in Business Thoughts
“What is the difference between unethical and ethical advertising? Unethical advertising uses falsehoods to deceive the public; ethical advertising uses truth to deceive the public.” – vilhjalmur Stefansson
Now.
Vilhjamur was a kick ass anthropologist (known for his description of the “Blond Eskimo” which is a Copper Inuit), his discovery of new lands in the Arctic, his approach to travel and exploration, and his theories of health and diet. And I am not sure what the hell he knew about advertising … but he did say this.
And because I opened with the quote let me address the whole marketing is evil (or ethical versus unethical) with this little “my point of view” overview.
I believe marketing people generally fall into three buckets.
- 1. Those who fabricate unimportant truths and tell you that they are important <these people are hacks and should be fired and told to pick up trash on the sides of highways>
- 2. Those who use existing unimportant truths and convince you that they are important <this is the largest group and will vary on a spectrum between those who do this knowingly – which puts them close to the highway garbage category – and those who are blissfully ignorant of what they are doing>
- 3. Those who take important truths and tell you that they are important <scarily this group may have the toughest job because we people are consistently uninterested in many important truths>
And it would be nice to suggest this is a simple 1 to 3 scale or, at minimum, a one to 5 scale. But I believe someone could quite successfully argue this three group scoring would be a 1 to 10 scale with lots of broadness in terms of interpretation and lots of caveats and excuses. And before any marketing person starts blathering about with caveats & excuses please make sure you read Bill Bernbach’s “Do this or Die” advertisement he wrote to advertising & marketing people (see marketing is evil part 2).
All that said … I empathize with people who suggest marketing is evil (evil being a broader term for “convincing people to buy shit they don’t really need or want to buy <before they saw the marketing>.”
I empathize because if I were to do some scoring I believe I would tend to see a lot of 4’s and 5’s.
I empathize because I just don’t see a lot of marketing that seems to approach selling stuff from a “what is in the best interest of the people” perspective.
Look.
I am all for capitalism and selling stuff … but a lot of marketing seems to lack a deeper moral/ethical substance. Not all … but some <a lot>.
And what makes it even more difficult to defend and discuss is that it is really difficult to put your finger on the core issue that seems to creep into the internal moral compass one would hope marketers would have.
Why? Because of what I called ‘unimportant truths versus important truths.’ Both of which are truths just with some interpretation issues thrown in to make it all fuzzy.
About marketing truths
A beginning thought:
“Record companies are in the marketing business. Fashion probably wasn’t evil before marketing people got involved and tried to invent themselves and sell it to America’s youth by convincing them that the rest of America’s youth was already partaking. Fashion probably began as a groundswell of beauty: the tribe enjoying the way the buildings look and music sounds, right now, in this moment. That’s valuable because it allows for substance to shift styles. But marketing will do anything to avoid substance and engage only in style. No longer beauty that falls from trees like apples, fashion becomes shiny, scary chemical candy, unnatural and unhealthy.” – Kristen Hersh
Ok.
How awesome and insightful is this thought?
There are so many great thoughts within it … well … it is scary.
‘fashion probably began as a groundswell of beauty.”
Think about this one. This is a big thought … much bigger than just about the fashion industry. Relevant to all of marketing. This whole thought revolves around substance versus style as the issue.
And suggests marketing has no substance … hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm … or, maybe better said, it thrives less on substance than style.
Here is the bigger thought hidden in there … “valuable because it allows for substance to shift styles.”
So.
Substance creates beauty all on its own … and marketing creates style to showcase that which may, or may not, have substance. Or, as earlier noted, maybe marketing becomes dependent upon unimportant truths.
O, even worse, “created truths” (a creative way of saying ‘lies’).
Does this alone make marketing evil? No. Ok, well, not all the time.
Because the key is substance.
And marketing truths.
Marketing has a habit of “creating truths.” Yeah … yeah .. yeah … someone is gonna come back and suggest “no, we aren’t creating truths … we are simply uncovering truths.”
Semantics.
Marketing is in the business of tearing apart the fabric of thought and identifying specific threads within the fabric that may be worth pointing out to people.
In the end? It is a thread. And not the fabric.
An example?
Let me try this on for an example:
“Stores Create More Holidays; Tissues Made for Summer, Pink Irons for Fall” (Wall Street Journal in august 2011)
People see 4 seasons (unless you live in California or the North Pole) but retailers see anywhere from 13 to 20 seasons. All designed to get shoppers into their stores and buy stuff.
The fabric? The season.
The threads? The 13 to 20 “seasons” retailers see.
Once again … is this evil, or lying, or even “unimportant truths”?
This is a really really gray area.
Creating more holidays. They are creating more sales … inevitably they are just trying to create more interest.
And they do all of this because retailers want impulse purchases (oh, by the way, which naturally happen to any of us … and marketing doesn’t create this … you <your own head> creates this).
Anyway. Suffice it to say what they do is try to get you in the store more often. Because the more often you visit the more likely you are to buy stuff.
And they do all of this quite thoughtfully.
So. Research says the average retail shopper visits a store once every two to three weeks. And shoppers go to the grocery store every seven to 10 days.
That means traditional retailers added grocery items hoping to make people make more frequent shopping trips.
Do I begrudge retailers this? Nope. They have a business to run.
And by being so “thoughtful” are they evil <in their quasi-manipulation of us shopping folk>? Nope.
And are they lying? Nope.
Let’s tear apart the fabric a little more.
Let’s try and and help you understand why there are a boatload of people out there who say marketing is evil.
Because this next example really starts talking about “unimportant truths” and, in the end, we are talking about some sense of mental manipulation.
Let’s look how they do it to see if its lying or evil … let’s look at a retailer’s 4, oops, 13 season year:
- Superbowl
- New Year’s Resolutions (January)
- Lawn and Garden (April)
- Back to School/College(July through August)
- Gifts for children; early entertaining décor (October, November)
- Last-minute gifts, stocking stuffers, food/entertaining (December)
- Health and Wellness January features exercise equipment, supplements and vitamins, items tied to shoppers’ New Year’s resolutions
- Spring (March to May) includes Easter, Graduation Day, Mother’s Day
- Pink/Women’s Health October includes displays of pink products and stores offer women’s health screenings.
- Fall Gatherings (Late September through November)
- ‘the day after Thanksgiving event,’ aka Black Friday. Includes gifts and splurge items. (November)
- Holiday Entertaining and Gifting (November, begins the day after black Friday)
- Organization and Storage(January)
(and I am sure I missed a couple in there … as well as I probably got some of the dates wrong … but … you get the point)
Why do they do this?
Research shows that people are usually willing to spend more during “special seasons.”
And even more dollars if they are spending on their children.
Look.
I don’t believe marketing is evil … but it is surely “wily smart” in that it is always seeking to find conscious or subconscious triggers to motivate behavior.
No.
Here is a truth.
Impulse or not … marketing cannot really make someone do something they don’t want to do.
And, in today’s world with return guarantees and such … it is almost next to impossible to maintain what could be construed as impulsive behavior decision (because it can so easily be “undone”).
Marketing is a business.
And you can certainly expect a retailer, and marketers, to make shopping as much of a science as possible.
And by “science” I mean by often “managing unimportant truths.”
In addition … they will build model stores, displays and end-caps (things at the end of the aisles) to see what makes people buy the most.
Once again, is that evil? Nope. It’s just being smart about your business.
In general I don’t think marketing is the embodiment of the Evil Empire.
I think most people just try to do the best they can.
Now. “The best” can be pretty bad at times.
Simplistically. Bad marketing is bad. And ignorance, or doing what you believe is the right thing to do, is no excuse for bad marketing or making the unimportant important.
Good marketing sells substance or (still good) expresses the existing emotional relationships people have with products.
On marketing’s good days it ultimately helps the best companies and products win over the bad stuff.
On marketing’s BEST days they actually get people to believe the important truths.
Next.
Evil: confusing evil messaging and evil actions
I brought up the unimportant versus important truths upfront because I believe marketing‘s evilness really should be defined by that. But. issues gets compounded not just by what they say but how and when they say it.
So beyond the message we shouldn’t get confused by marketer’s actions (which are not evil … just absurdly annoying … which I imagine could be construed as some level of evilness).
I do wish more marketers would pay attention to information available to them.
According to Pitney Bowes research, consumers surveyed in France, Germany, the UK and the U.S. have indicated which marketing activities draw them closer … and which act as a repellant.
If marketers would pay attention, people are quite clear about what they want from marketing interactions.
And if marketers would pay attention they would clearly see many of their actions are simply not having the intended effect.
Worse, inappropriate communications often diminish a brand’s attractiveness, thereby losing people’s interest and ultimately even existing customers opt out.
So. The good things? Customer satisfaction surveys. 75% were fine with them. Great opportunity for marketers to “not sell” but rather learn and create customized messaging/experiences based on each consumer’s preferences.
“This survey confirms that brands should listen to consumers before they send out their communications. Every interaction must honor the interests of the customer first, only then is a relevant offer or call to action acceptable to consumers. Each conversation between a brand and a customer is an opportunity to delight or disappoint. We’re all learning how to do more of the former and less of the latter.” – PitneyBowes Reasearch
On websites, 59% say they appreciate personalization such as “Welcome <name>.”
For transactional sites, especially where purchases are being made, it can be reassuring to know that the site recognizes your personal account details and has a record of interactions to draw upon.
Okay.
Now the annoying stuff. And where marketing, I believe, just doesn’t help itself.
Efforts which are meant to be inviting but are just plain irritating to most consumers.
- Asking customers to support a brand’s charity or ethical concerns (84%)
- Sending offers from third-parties (83%)
- Encouraging interaction with other consumers via an online community (81%).
Is this stuff evil? Of course not. But if you add these actions on top of the fact a marketer is most likely communicating an “unimportant truth” it is not only annoying but it is irrelevant. You have been intrusive and unimportant.
The double kiss of death.
Anyway.
Evil is always associated with people.
Truth or lie.
Annoying actions or relevant actions.
It all comes down to who is pulling the trigger.
And here is where marketing runs into its most trouble … marketing people.
Ok. Maybe it’s not the people … it’s just their common sense decision-making that seems to run into trouble.
All too often it seems the marketing people manage to run into troubling ethical dilemmas … and inevitably make some really bad, or certainly questionable, choices (with a consumer’s perspective in mind).
Most of the time these bad choices consist of less than the entire truth … or full disclosure of information the customer would want to know to make a reasonable decision. Let’s call this “selective truth telling.”
Or, as earlier pointed out, selecting one thread in the fabric to point out.
Or even “trying to convince you an unimportant truth is … well … impoartnt.” And, at its worst? Trying to convince you an unimportant truth is REALLY impoartnt.”
This is probably the best example of “the lie of silence.” (which I have written about before)
It’s all very tricky because most products & services tend to be good, useful products. And the ethical dilemma is how much information is it okay to hide <not tell> from the buyer to make a sale.
Oh.
Of which many marketers will hide behind the excuse “but we only have so much time to capture someone’s attention.”
Shame on those marketers.
You always have time to tell the important truth.
And, in your heart of hearts, a good marketer knows that honesty and important truths win in the long run.
In the end … I do believe the thought of marketing as evil (in a true sense) is absurd.
In an abstract sense (like Kristen mentions in her quote I used)?
Well. Possibly.
Evil is a strong word. It could be truly that marketing, when gone awry, can warp the true essence of the intent.
And that may seem evil but it is just wrong.
However.
Evil or not.
As a marketer myself … I would like to remind all marketers we have a responsibility. What we say and what we do DOES impact what people think … and ultimately can affect what they do.
With that ‘power’ comes a responsibility.
And it would be evil, yes, evil for us to forget that.
marketing is evil part 2
Mar 27th
Posted by Bruce in Business Thoughts
This is a short followup. In part one I reference something Bill Bernbach wrote. An advertisement for advertising to advertising people.
It is something everyone in marketing & advertising should read. And ignore at your own peril.
Enjoy. It is called “Do this or Die.”
DO THIS OR DIE
Is this ad some kind of trick?
No. But it could have been.
And at exactly that point rests a do or die decision for American business.
We in advertising, together with our clients, have all the power and skill to trick people.
Or so we think. But we’re wrong.
We can’t fool any of the people any of the time.
There is indeed a twelve-year-old mentality in this country; every six-year-old has one.
We are a nation of smart people.
And most smart people ignore most advertising because most advertising ignores smart people.
Instead we talk to each other.
We debate endlessly about the medium and the message.
Nonsense. In advertising, the message itself is the message.
A blank page and a blank television screen are one and the same.
And above all, the messages we put on those pages and on those television screens must be the truth.
For if we play tricks with the truth, we die.
Now. The other side of the coin.
Telling the truth about a product demands a product that’s worth telling the truth about.
Sadly, so many products aren’t.
So many products don’t do anything better.
Or anything different.
So many don’t work quite right.
Or don’t last. Or simply don’t matter.
If we also play this trick, we also die.
Because advertising only helps a bad product fail faster.
No donkey chases the carrot forever.
He catches on. And quits.
That’s the lesson to remember.
Unless we do, we die.
Unless we change, the tidal wave of consumer indifference will wallop into the mountain of advertising and manufacturing drivel.
That day we die.
We’ll die in our marketplace.
On our shelves. In our gleaming packages of empty promises.
Not with a bang. Not with a whimper.
But by our own skilled hands.
Doyle Dane Bernbach Incorporated





