Posts tagged simplicity has gone the way of the dodo
spinal tap marketing
Apr 23rd
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.
marketing is evil?
Mar 27th
“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’).
Ok.
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
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
here an insight, there an insight, where an insight?
Feb 9th
So.
Every once in awhile in the ad/marketing business we talk about “what’s the insight that will help us create the big idea?”
Ok.
Not every once in awhile.
Actually ad nausea.
So often your head hurts.
In fact it may be the reason why people in the industry drink as often as they do.
Wow. I wonder if that is an insight.
Anyway.
Here is an insight to the aggravating people always asking for “an” insight.
There are product insights.
Company insights.
Consumer (or user) insights.
There are category insights for gods sake.
Insights are all around us (I wanted to use a gnat analogy but that could be construed as sarcastic).
Here an insight, there an insight, everywhere an insight (I believe that is a nursery rhyme insight reference).
In the end … a really good insight in marketing/brand management/product development/whatever development … marries the product and consumer needs.
Here is an insight.
Consumers don’t care about products or brands. All they care about is outcomes and results. Let’s , for simplistic sake, suggest that is “need.”
Some marketing insight guru described a consumer insight as “penetration into the target’s collective subconscious to unearth a link between untapped attitudes and behaviors to discover a deep-seated truth that reveals important needs/values the brand can exploit to connect with the target to impact attitudes and behaviors.”
That insight definition made my head hurt.
Especially the “exploiting” part.
But.
I do like the ‘deep seated truth‘ part.
Regardless. Suffice it to say the guru meant “an insight into need.”
<oops. Too simple>
Anyway.
There is no one insight.
And rarely is an insight more than just a window of opportunity (only to be replaced by another “insight” at another time).
The only thing that stays the same? That truth part.
Because the frickin’ truth is that if you want to change something in a consumer mindset (attitude) leading to purchase/usage (behavior) which benefits the brand (sales) … focus on some outcome/result.
Yeah … yeah … yeah … that ‘outcome’ may be a Maslow type outcome (self-worth, appearance, esteem, actualization, etc.) but that is outcome for god’s sake … not some mumbo jumbo on a voodoo thing I want to penetrate and exploit.
It is something real to a person. And if it is real … it is a truth. And if it is a truth it cannot be exploited … it can only be something that can be ‘met.’
And, by the way, if you happen to wrangle up an insightful truth (and make it through the mumbo jumbo marketing maze internally and externally) it really can impact what you do:
- Product design: how it looks and what it says on shelf or wherever you sell it. Why? Well. Now we can talk about exploiting. Because if you DID make it through the maze I can guarantee you are the exception to the rule … most of your competitors didn’t … therefore you can exploit their failure to do so (marketing gurus call this “weakness”).
- Marketing communication: this is obvious … but easier than you think (assuming you have made it to a ‘deep seated truth’) … why is it so much easier? Well.
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm <I am thinking not humming>… because you have an opportunity to … well … speak the truth. Ok. It’s harder than you think despite that fact. Because even if you make it to this point (having identified the truth) a shitload of people will panic … they will want to dress the truth up in Lady Gaga like clothing trying to make the truth look ‘sexy’ (or more appealing). Why? Because sometimes people think the truth is too bland and needs to be spiced up. Marketing gurus make you think this way because they want to call his truth thing something like “an untapped compelling belief”. Yeah. Right. Marketing bullshit. Run away. As fast as you can.
So. This is easy if you are around people who accept that it is easy.
Ok. Next.
A lot of good insights are wasted. Not just because the window of opportunity closes while you dither around with whether the insight is really an insight or whether it is sexy enough … but because even with a good, or even mediocre, insight it gets wasted because then no one wants to identify who the insight should be communicated to.
Huh?
Yup.
It can be a real head scratcher but let’s say you find a nifty insight against a specific group … and then all of a sudden some genius stands up and says “tell everyone that … maybe they just didn’t know ‘x’ and we need to tell them … because … well … your presentation was great … and we should tell everyone the truth.”
In marketing layman’s terms this is some spineless jellyfish who doesn’t want to agree on a targeting choice but rather go to some broad audience (this is the infamous shotgun versus rifle battle).
Suffice it to say if most CMOs/Marketing/Agency decision makers were generals their armies would be carrying around shotguns and not rifles.
I think the Cosa Nostra called them “luparas” (lupara is an Italian word used to refer to a sawn-off shotgun traditionally associated with Cosa Nostra. The shortened barrel of a lupara lend itself to easier concealment and the lack of choke contributes to a wider spread of shot when the weapon is fired).
Yeah.
Well.
This is sounding more and more like the Valentine’s Day Massacre so maybe it is appropriate.
And it all starts so innocently.
“We need an insight.”
And it sounds simple … align purchaser need, an insight, and customer benefit and you can typically have a great opportunity to identify a good marketing idea.
Maybe it is simple because, once again, success revolves around the truth.
And maybe it is so frickin’ hard because, well, once again, it revolves around the truth.
In the end?
I end up discussing the mafia and shooting myself with a Lupara.
simplicity
Jul 14th
Ok.
This is probably going to end my posts on simplicity. I have written several (most recent on project briefs) and this is my most complex on simplicity … hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm now there is a paradox. Regardless. I get to use a bunch of quotes and rant about management and simplicity so it was fun to write. Enjoy.
“Something of true value does not become more valuable because it becomes complicated. – Donald Curtis
Whew.
If I could make this thought above a management mandatory ‘way-of-life’ I would be willing to give up coffee for the rest of my life (that is a REALLY big deal).
Why? Because if we actually lived and breathed this thought in the business world business would be more efficient, daily work life would be more efficient and life would be more efficient. Ok. It would be more efficient. Get it?
I think people believe simplicity doesn’t have value. Or maybe that complexity equals value. Either way you look at those last two thoughts we are screwed.
Here is the truth.
‘That which is simple is invaluable.’
Period.
End of thought.
“Simplicity is an acquired taste. Mankind, left free, instinctively complicates life.” Katherine Gerould
So. I laughed when I saw this quote for the first time.
We all want to simplify our lives (or at least we talk about it a lot) and yet, as a generalization, we all seem to seek every way possible to complicate our lives.
We are a certainly a ‘people’ of problem solvers (but also problem creators as a corollary). The problem appears to be we are all ‘doing’ so much it is difficult to keep it all simple. And, oddly in a way, we seem to find a certain pride in uncovering solutions to the complex lives we have created for ourselves. I guess it is just human nature in that we find self-value in problem solving. Therefore simplicity is just not seem as problem solving (or maybe it is just less self evident as such).
I guess I find that thought not only in life but in business.
And that thought creates challenges because the best solutions are often the ideas that are immediately obvious once someone shows it to you. It’s not an “ah ha” moment but rather a “doh!” moment.
The ‘doh’ is almost like the sound of complexity being unraveled into simplicity.
but instead of being happy (even delighted with the ‘doh’ moment we seek to find complexity.
Look. There is no simple solution to complexity.
Simple is hard.
Sometimes simple is arrived at by distilling complex solutions/ideas down.
Sometimes simplicity ideas can only be found from checking out all of the different solutions. And while you may end up with a “doh” moment you may be surprised by the solutions that make the most sense at the end of the day.
And why is simple THAT hard?
Well. Al Einstein said, “Make things as simple as can be—but not simpler.”
Geez.
So simple isn’t the least. It may actually be somewhere above the least and significantly below the most (complex).
(by the way. that may be one of the smartest simplest things I have ever written)
Anyway.
A definition moment (pause) ….
sim·plic·i·ty ( n):
- 1. The property, condition, or quality of being simple or uncombined.
- 2. Absence of luxury or showiness; plainness.
- 3. Absence of affectation or pretense.
- 4. Lack of sophistication or subtlety; naiveté.
- Lack of good sense or intelligence; foolishness. - 5. Clarity of expression.
- Austerity in embellishment.
Whew.
Good stuff here (although some of it a little scary).
First. Could you imagine going into a business and have a meeting and say “let’s keep it simple” and then sitting through “plainness with absence of showiness”? Yikes. No can do.
Second.
So let’s stick with “quality of being simple or uncombined” and “clarity of expression.”
Yes can do (maybe not actually do).
Unfortunately both seem to be missing in much of our current business world.
Because people get confused about simple. Yup. Confused.
Because when we hear simple we translate “lacking sophistication or good sense and intelligence” in our heads.
And that, my friends, is silly. Very very silly.
Why?
“Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius — and a lot of courage — to move in the opposite direction.” – Albert Einstein
Once again our good friend Al saves the day with an awesome quote.
“Any intelligent fool” will seek to add complexity to build self value.
Oops.
Yep. SELF value.
Not value in the idea (that isn’t the motivation) but self value. How someone looks to others. How someone feels about themselves. Self importance type stuff. Ego. Id? Whatever.
Suffice it to say having a desire to add complexity to a beautiful simple idea has nothing to do with the idea but rather with the person.
Which leads me to the next thought.
This courage thing. “a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction.”
Well.
Think about it (what people think in their heads).
If it is SO simple then anyone can do it. And if anyone can do it then why do we need you?
(because I uncovered the frickin’ solution/idea you jerk … sorry … thought bubble moment).
It takes courage to be good at simple.
And it takes a HUGE amount of courage in a world where “more is better”.
We strive for more things. More complexity.
More stuff is better.
More for your money.
Heck. More money.
So if the idea doesn’t have “more”? Well. you are more than kinda screwed.
So much of modern life seems to be about more.
Life is ‘too busy’ with ‘too many choices’ and there is ‘never enough whatever’ and despite this we always feel a need for ‘wanting more’ (whatever more is).
This isn’t to say that wanting more is bad or wrong. Sometimes the desire for more helps – wanting more responsibility at work can lead to becoming better than what you were before (and leading to a higher position, more responsibility, more money, etc.).
Look. I do believe wanting more can help us grow in many ways.
But. When does wanting more go too far and then we start to miss the simplicity in life. Where the basics have a higher value than luxury (because we cannot see the basics for being goo-goo eyed on desirable luxuries).
Ok.
Moving on to another simplicity gone awry.
“Most of the fundamental ideas of science are essentially simple, and may, as a rule, be expressed in a language comprehensible to everyone.” – Albert Einstein
I threw this one in not because I want to talk about science or the periodic table but rather to make a point.
The point?
Anything should be expressed in a “language comprehensible to everyone.”
Complex and clever solutions quickly become fragile because there are more moving parts and more possible points of failure. Oh. And they become more difficult to explain. And the additional details become nuances.
Just because something is using the latest or coolest technology, doesn’t mean that it’s the best idea. If that technology (or cool widget) doesn’t reduce complexity or streamline process get rid of it. That sounds easier than it really it is. People love ‘bright shiny objects’. And complexity often hides within some bright shiny object. (so beware bright shiny objects would be the lesson here).
So.
In the end (my closing simplicity related quote):
“Dealing with complexity is an inefficient and unnecessary waste of time, attention and mental energy. There is never any justification for things being complex when they could be simple.” – Edward de Bono
This should be a postulate (or theorem).
Complexity is a destructive path. (yeah. that bad)
It creates on ongoing flow of building more and more complex solutions that take eons to implement.
Oh.
And all that is happening when most people need something NOW.
Hey. I am not suggesting that to avoid complexity we should develop less than best quality solutions.
But. I am suggesting simple solutions are often the best solutions.
And I am suggesting simplicity can often solve an immediate issue.
And sooner rather than later in this often complex world of ours is … well … simply good.
simplicity & the project brief
Jun 14th
For an industry (advertising) where we talk about simplicity ad nausea we are one huge family of complicators.
And as I pondered this issue and scratched my head I began thinking that the issue begins with step one (and just compounds from there on out).
Step one? The project brief.
The creative brief. The project brief. The brief. Regardless whatever kind of brief you want to call it … inevitably it turns out to be anything but brief.
I feel I am qualified to write about this because for over 2 decades (a score if you want a Gettysburg Address reference) it seems I have wrangled with the ‘right words’ with the intent to not only create an effective brief but also be brief. And throughout I have encountered endless suffering through countless edits and rewording and every imaginable method a creative brief or project brief can get mangled (and complicated).
I like no brevity.
No.
I love brevity. But that doesn’t mean I have always been successful. In the end I have learned only one thing.
Being simple is complicated.
Ok. I have learned two things.
Being simple takes remarkable effort.
Even if you intend to abandon all the complexity and go with just the basics it is next to impossible to consistently deliver a simple project brief.
So.
I always laugh when I read some training manual that begins (or ends) with “keep it simple.”
Because if it were that simple everyone would do it.
Look. Lets be clear. Simplicity shouldn’t be confused with simplistic. Simplicity is straightforward and easy to understand—even the most complex things.
Simplicity starts with the language you use.
Don’t overcomplicate things.
Draft, rewrite, edit and edit again (and probably rewrite).
Think shorter sentences (which are almost always better than long sentences).
Avoid using passive sentences that leave readers scratching their heads.
Don’t use too many adjectives. I would suggest not using any, but that is difficult if you want to insure some personality is incorporated.
I guess its (theoretically) simple. It’s just about using plain, easy to understand language.
But.
The truth is that most brief development process end up “editing’ (I use that term loosely) nice simple, clear instructions (that should normally take at most several paragraphs to communicate) into a mouse-type (so it all fits on one page) malaise of muddled confusion reflecting bureaucratic inefficiency as person after person layers in ‘what they think.’
I do have a theory as to why this happens (its not really my theory so I will source it)
The book “Made to Stick” calls it “The Curse of Knowledge:”
Too much knowledge becomes bad when it becomes a curse that prevents smart people from sharing smart advice that less knowledgeable people can understand. Example:
“Use the friendship paradox to identify the social brokers at opaque target markets. Identifying people closer to the center of the social graph delivers higher ROI when evangelizing.”
Yikes.
Look.
At some point the purpose of the brief is to communicate what our intentions are for a specific task to someone who has to actually do something.
And it must be communicated quickly and easily in a way that can be understood by anyone. And sometimes even communicated to someone without an understanding of who we are or what we do.
Yes. This can be very difficult. Especially when dealing with complex issues with multiple outcomes.
But we should always seek to communicate using simplicity to describe the indescribable (because that is what we do).
In the end you need to be ruthless (and ‘you’ means anyone who touches a brief) to attain simplicity.
And don’t fall under the curse of knowledge.
Less is more, and anything too complex or distracting will fail in its aims.
So.
I say all that because I recently saw an example of simplicity in instruction.
True clarity in expectations and direction.
It consists of 3 paragraphs (succinct).
It is entirely devoid of bullshit, corporate lingo, fine print or filler “content”.
It conveys everything it needs to convey (with candor associated with the personality of the “brand”).
It is the kind of project brief we would all like to write one day.
It is the project brief written by Mick Jagger to Andy Warhol for the cover for the Sticky Fingers album.
What else could anyone ever ask for in a creative brief?
For that matter, what else could anyone ever ask for from all of your organization’s communications, digital or otherwise?
Simple instructions with character (the latter setting the “what is acceptable” parameters).
Sounds simple.
(its not)
simple complicated. complicated simple.
Jul 23rd
Making the simple complicated is commonplace.
But.
Making the complicated simple is not commonplace.
That.
Is.
For.
Frickin’.
Sure.
In fact. I have almost started believing that they are teaching “how to complicate things” in schools these days.
And even worse? (and this is really nutty)
Say for example you really have been able to articulate something simply AND it is actually so awesomely simple it is brilliant.
You are feeling pretty good with yourself about right now. You were clear, concise and brilliant in simplicity.
(here comes the nutty part)
No one believes its right.
Yup. No shit.
“It cannot be right. That’s too simple. WE MUST BE MISSING SOMETHING.”
(I capitalized it not because when it is said someone is shouting but, rather when you hear it, it sounds like someone shouting in your head and there is a buzzing sound in your ears like a grenade went off beside your head)
You want to look around and calmly say:
“You are correct. Brilliant insight in fact. What’s missing is all the COMPLICATED SHIT YOU WANT TO COMPLICATE THIS WITH.”
(note: on occasion you may actually shout this but on the off chance you don’t you will want to shout it)
Somewhere in the past it became uncool to do something simple.
And since that time (and I would shoot the bastard if I could find him who did it) it seems like we have gained momentum surrounding this concept and not is it uncool to do something simple the majority of people cannot even recognize a simple solution.
Simplicity has gone the way of the Dodo (extinct).
On occasion someone stands up and says “hey, I am not sure Dodos are extinct, I am pretty sure I saw one in that conference room.”
Everyone laughs. “Dodos are extinct.”
“Well, I have seen a picture of one and I am pretty sure it was one.”
Needless to say you either become extinct in the company if you stay the course or worse they throw you into the loony zoo with all the other Dodo sightings.
So.
Here’s the deal.
If you are one of the rare birds who can see simple things as they are (simple), don’t get frustrated. And every time you watch something simple become more complicated just take note and put that thought in a little box for another day.
Because one day you are going to be in a position to tell people what to do. I guarantee it.
How can I guarantee it?
Because you are one of the rare birds who can see the simple within the complex.
It won’t matter how many of these discussions you lose in early years.
Oh, and you really aren’t an extinct bird. Just so rare no one recognizes you.
You will lead one day.
Then you pull out your box and start doing simple things and kicking some ass (just don’t tell anyone you are a Dodo … probably not a good idea … let them think you are extinct).
Fun aside.
Lack of simplicity in the business world is probably the biggest issue in business these days. And it is overlooked as everyone focuses on ‘building brands’ and bottom lines and organizational alignment and whatever the business buzzword du jour is.
Shove ‘em off to the side.
The biggest issue facing American businesses today is over complicating simple things.
It’s that simple.
(and no one will believe me)
why Islam appears to be kicking christianity’s ass
Jan 15th
(note: kicking ass for now)
I am not a theologian nor particularly religiously knowledgeable. However Christianity, and its role around the world, is very important to a number of people I care about and respect. Through work and some friendships I have been on the periphery of the religious discussion and Christianity’s place in today’s world. I have an opinion and this point of view shares it. You will see some numbers which I have used to provide some perspective. I have used as sources a variety of online/USA Today articles and research.
The situation (or challenge)
There is absolutely a decline of Christianity (no matter how you look at the numbers). Suffice it to say within the world’s largest democracies Christianity is a declining portion of the population in all but South Korea and Japan. Conversions away from the faith are the main reason. From 1990 to 2008, the portion of American adults who self-identify as Christians has dropped 10 percentage points (from 86% to 76%), while the portion of those who report no religious affiliation has almost doubled — from 8% to 15%. All the while Atheism and other forms of non-belief have been expanding in the United States.
The total number of Muslims is a little more than one fifth of the world’s population, over a billion Muslims in the world, a majority in 50 nations. Just 2% of the world’s Muslims live in the West. The growth rate of the Muslim population, which averaged 1.9 between 2000 and 2006, is also far higher than the world’s population growth rate, which averaged 1.2% in the same period. It is also much faster than any other major religious group.
Nevertheless, even if a Muslim majority is coming it probably will not be soon. Over the last six years the Muslim population has grown only about two thirds of a percentage point a year faster than the world population.
It is interesting to note (and relevant to this writing) that a conference of Muslim leaders in Mecca in 1899 was called to discuss the decline of Islam. From then the second half of the twentieth century has seen a Muslim revival.
Possibly most importantly, Islam is growing in organizational strength, not just numbers. It has undergone massive restructuring in the last five years. Mosques and other institutions are proliferating, and Muslims are exerting their influence in such fields as education, censorship and politics. This is no accident. A document produced by a prominent Muslim leader in the UK in the early 1980s described the Islamic movement in the West as ‘an organized struggle to change the existing society into an Islamic Society with the Qur’an and Sunna as its base’.
Islam is organized and focused and has momentum.
Okay. Let’s not haggle over the exact numbers. Christianity has an issue and Islam is taking advantage.
Attacking the Issue: Separate Religion from Church
I believe Christians need to separate their belief in the religion from their bias toward a particular church. To me religion is the practice of believing in a higher power, or at minimum, subscribing to a particular set of values while the Church is simply a place, or a construct within, you go to learn these things.
I believe church (or churches) are confusing people. Each church seems to have a different set of rules as well as a different interpretation of the bible. Most critically it has become difficult to understand what is unifying between all the different church groups (and I admit .. it may be there .. that unifying aspect .. but the individual church rhetoric is so noisy I cannot hear it). Suffice it to say the current situation has discouraged even some of the faithful.
Let’s get more people to consider Christianity (then offer a specific church group).
Hey. I am not against competition. And I believe every spiritual path has the right to be passionate with regard to their beliefs and their path. What I do believe is troublesome is when the “in fighting” creates confusion and the entire industry suffers in totality.
Every Christian church group should be passionate about their path to God. BUT. It shouldn’t come at the expense of the bigger issue – Christianity.
The best example I can think of at the moment is the US Armed Forces. I am quite sure that behind closed doors the Marines, Army, Air Force and Navy (and maybe the National Guard and Coast Guard and whatever) are pushing and pulling for their own self interest. And each branch has an identity and does whatever it can do to remind people of the difference. But come war the objective is clear, differences put aside and they work together to win. They understand the overall objective is more important than the individual constituents. Is there some chafing? Sure. Is there alignment on doing what is best for US interests? Sure.
There will be debate. There will be arguments. People will get pissed at each other (or whatever version of pissed off Christian leaders are permitted to be). But in the end the whole is stronger than the parts. I am confident no one, and I mean no one, can beat an aligned focused US Armed Forces initiative. And I would argue the same for Christianity.
Discipline. Rules.
One of the people I admire most in the world is a Marine highly decorated from his service in Vietnam. But my admiration and respect has little to do with decorations (although I admit it earns my ultimate respect), but rather with the man himself. He is a master coordinator, organizer and inspirer. As a CEO of a global franchise organization, he put in place the discipline and set of rules that defined who could be on his team and be successful. But that was the basics. He set out a framework of attitudinal “rules” and values as well as defined an organizational attitude. Instilled with these additional parameters, this organization, and others he has been associated with, clearly defined itself in the marketplace, gathered likeminded people and ultimately became globally successful and wealthy. So rules can include attitude as well as “things we have to do.”
Maybe Christianity needs the same discipline and rules as a successful franchise organization.
I apologize to theologians by comparing religion to a global franchise organization but the parallels are too great to ignore by a non-believer such as I. Disparate locations with a common goal and an objective to be more successful than the competition. If a 3000 unit franchise organization can figure out how to remain aligned enough globally to be efficient focused and successful, surely a Christian organization can. Read the rest of this entry »
