“Any idiot can face a crisis; it’s the day to day living that wears you out.”
=
Anton Chekov
—
Ok.
I love this quote.
I love it because so many times in the business world someone touts their ability to be “leader in a crisis.”
Uhm.
God knows I have fallen into that trap.
<sigh>
Sure.
Some people are really good in a crisis.
Sure.
A lot of people look good in a crisis even though they really aren’t .. out of sheer luck of the draw <as well as the fact they figured out how to survive>.
But.
The true test of people is how they manage every day. This is where I mention something else I have written (but may not have been published yet).
Single mothers.
I don’t know how they do it. The way they face the stress of everyday life and responsibilities is an example many of us could learn from if we took the time to do so. Single mothers, parents, have my utmost respect in how they refuse to let “day to day living wear you out.”
Anyway.
I have seen far too many idiots face a crisis.
The true test in Life is facing the day to day crap.
And we should all aspire to not letting life wear you out.
My neighbor, who has a great mutt named Josie, was telling me about a Pedigree commercial she thought I would like.
Oh.
I typically dislike pet food advertising because I think most of it is fairly unoriginal and “cute” <I CANNOT believe I just typed that word> and rarely actually gives me a reason to buy their stuff.
I do think IAMS does a nice job talking about some of the functional reasons to purchase, and I loved the Snausages execution <the one where the dog yells “snausages”> because I could just envision my dog doing the same <note: it didn’t really compel me to buy Snausages but I thought the commercial was hysterical>.
Anyway.
The Pedigree ads.
I cruised onto Youtube and checked them out (because apparently I don’t watch TV shows with high dog viewership because I haven’t seen any of this crap). Before I get to the ones that she told me about I do want to point out one Australia version of a Pedigree ad which I really liked. I think it is an older campaign and the use of an Aussie voice (which could calmly tell you that you were fat, dumb and ugly … and you would still smile) may bias me but I thought it was nice.
I thought it was simple with a straightforward message and a little twist that made it clear they understood dogs:
Ok.
Onto the ‘slow mo’ Pedigree campaign. Beautifully shot and produced. Well crafted. Not sure it will sell one damn bag of dog food.
Oops.
That was the cynical-advertising-business-side of me speaking.
Ok. Ok.
With one exception.
The introductory “now available” version I thought clearly made me want to pay attention to the words and the footage is really nice:
This next version I am sure is the one TBWA has on their agency reel and probably has never aired on one television show (its 2 minutes long). And it seems to go too long, but once again fun to watch and it has beautiful footage and I hope they never pay to air it because I don’t think it will sell one bag of dog food.
So.
I figured after pounding on the 2 minute version I should probably share the one that is probably on television right now. I don’t really have anything new to say other than the fact I have been on a production where we had a dog jump and grab something and it is a pain to shoot and shoot well but if you get it right (like TBWA did) it is a really cool little vignette in the bigger scheme of the commercial.
Lastly.
Now.
I love the filming of the commercials and I absolutely love the introductory commercial (mostly because it is well done and unabashedly an introductory message). I would also like to note I am an admirer of TBWA who did this campaign (Toronto office I believe), however, the campaign is kind of a rip off of a video done by Pleix films in about 2006. But, hey, great ideas can happen everywhere and copying is the truest form of flattery (although I seriously doubt they knew they were copying).
Now, that is just a short film done for creativity’s sake and isn’t selling anything but the production capabilities of the group who created it, but it is a fun very well done video particularly if you like dogs.
That’s it.
My neighbor got me thinking about it and I love dogs so I thought what the heck…write about it.
So. I have written a number of things about God and religion not because I am religious, but mostly because I get grumpy with how some people use (or misuse) God and religion and the Bible.
With that said, my friend sent me a mailer he received from Saint Matthew’s churches with a mailing address of Tulsa (not picking on Oklahoma although I am still a little pissed about having to pay a $3.50 toll every time I tried to drive on any paved road in the state). Anyway. The mailer.
Not only could I use a prepaid business reply card to get a free “golden prosperity faith cross” but I could also check a box (although I assume I could check multiple boxes) for:
Pray for my finance
Pray for me to receive a continuous money blessing
Pray for ‘I need a job’
Pray for my blood pressure? Huh? WTF.
Or
“List other needs you have” (so I could order a specific prayer if I wanted)
Ok. I don’t know God. Never met him. But I have been quite near the top of a 350+ employee organization. So. With all that goes on in that position, I did tend to filter out some things from employees (“we want French Roast instead of Breakfast Blend in cafeteria”, “why is TV in lobby on CNN instead of ESPN”, “are shorts really appropriate on casual Friday”, “is it ok to not wear underwear” … things like that). I am kinda thinkin’ God, who has slightly more than 350 employees, ain’t focused on answering a prayer so you can afford another big Mac (or Budweiser if that’s your thing).
Ok. Ok. That’s extreme. But. C’mon. Prayers for financial support? (I won’t even touch the blood pressure). This is the kind of shit that gives God an ulcer (assuming he or she has one). Heck. It makes my blood pressure go up (but I promise I won’t pray to relieve it).
Next. While the mailer does not ask for money (I don’t know what you get when you get the cross you requested by sending back the business reply card) it does suggest if you receive this cross wealth will follow you.
It says .. “God has made these promises to you in the holy bible .. for it is He that giveth thee power to get wealth.”
Oh my.
In addition. If you doubt the meaning (or are maybe slightly confused on what God is promising), there are some nifty testimonials:
“God blessed me with a home and a gas station”
“I was in need of $2492.00 for income tax. God blessed me the next day.”
“After I received the Cross God blessed me with $1000.35. I was so far behind I was almost broke.”
“I wrote to you to ask you to pray that God would bless me with a larger house. God answered my prayer by blessing me with a beautiful three apartment building. It is called a triplex because it has three apartments and I own them all.”
Wow.
Linking prayer to receipt of wealth scares me (and I don’t scare easily).
Do I mind prayer for spiritual health and well being? Nope.
Do I believe God wants people to have wealth? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm … spiritual wealth absolutely. Financial wealth I tend to believe he doesn’t really care. (he didn’t seem to have a lot of dinero himself)
If religion (Christianity) ever wonders why it seems like it is always fighting an uphill battle this little mailer becomes a showcase example for why. Soliciting a belief in God using “financial relief if you contact us” in my little packaged goods marketing world would be construed as possible “bait & switch.” And in my wacky world that is illegal. If God were here I would tend to believe he would not only find this direct mail campaign as offensive but also “illegal” in his law of ethics. But that’s me.
The few employees remaining are being more productive
People are drinking more cheap liquor and not in restaurants.
Am I the only one to conclude that drinking cheap liquor increases productivity in the workplace and may be a key variable in increased unemployment and the recession?
First. The Labor Department says new claims for unemployment insurance rose again (this was 2/4/10 report). Surprise, huh? Oh. And it’s a separate post but what am I counted as? I am not working but I don’t claim unemployment insurance. I cannot envision I am the only one. I guess once again I am just “unclassified.”
Second. In another report Thursday, the Labor Department said worker productivity rose more than expected in the October-December quarter as companies squeezed more output from their employees. All I can say is “cheap bastards.”
Anyway. Productivity rose a seasonally adjusted 6.2% in the fourth quarter, above analysts’ expectations of a 6% rise. The increase follows two quarters of sharply rising productivity. Overall, productivity has risen 5.1% in the past four quarters, the most since the 12 months ending with the first quarter of 2002.
Third. In a third report last year, the lowest-priced liquor segment, with brands such as Popov vodka that can go for less than $10 for a fifth, grew the fastest, with volume rising 5.5%, after edging up 0.6% in 2008. Meanwhile, the most expensive price range, roughly $30 or more for a 750 ml bottle (think Grey Goose, owned by Bacardi), fell the most, tumbling 5.1%. Sales in stores — which make up three-quarters of liquor sales — rose about 2.1%, while sales in restaurants fell 3%.Sales volume for the cheapest versions of tequila rose 21%, the fastest of any type of spirit.
Fourth. Hey. I am no Einstein but I do know that A + B = C (or squared or whatever). So. I conclude cheap liquor is helping create this recession. Eliminate liquor and employees will be less productive and then companies will need to hire more people to maintain their productivity. (Hey, I took Economics in college).
Once again Enlightened Conflict combats ignorance and is the first to tell the truth about the recession.
I used to coach kids baseball and football when I could still actually play some (I liked teaching the mechanics and playing stuff). Nowadays there is this kind of wacky thing going on where kids, learning to play, can’t lose. Sometimes they don’t even keep score. They play games with a tee ball where you can swing as often as you want until you hit it.
I am sure there are dozens of psychology (or psychiatry … I can never keep ‘em straight) papers suggesting that in some way not losing encourages kids to keep playing or feel better about themselves or something.
Ok. Here the deal. In games. In school. In whatever. Someone wins and someone loses. I won’t list all those situations again but in addition to winning and losing, there are some people smarter than you, some less smart, some will be better at things than you and some who don’t do some things as well as you. Sorry folks. That would be called Life.
Somewhere along the way we seemed to have lost sight of the issue.
It isn’t about winning or losing.
It is all about how you handle winning or losing. That is the lesson we should be teaching kids (and there are a boatload of adults who could probably use the lesson too).
So now we are heading down a path where the initial lesson we are teaching a generation is that winning or losing doesn’t matter. And I don’t care which side of that equation you take…each side matters.
Yes. It matters if you win.
And, yes, it matters if you lose.
If you don’t think that, then you don’t learn from each time. It isn’t that losing is bad (although winning feels better), it is that losing should show you something. Can I improve? Should I invest time improving? Is it that maybe there are too many others better than I am at this particular thing?
Winning is the exact same thing. But winning in childhood is tricky and addictive. Winning can fool you into believing different things about yourself and your abilities. But that is a lesson also.
But none of that really matters because we are bringing up a generation where we are missing the opportunity to teach kids that. Why? Because no one is frickin’ winning or losing. We are building a generation of nonwinners where everyone is truly losing in the end.
“… a bad idea is a bad idea and will never be a good idea no matter how well you dress it up.”
—
Bruce McTague
===
So.
Comcast, perhaps having just seen their 100th consecutive consumer research study showcasing their lack of customer service (Hey. All cable companies are in this boat. So it’s not just them) and massive customer dissatisfaction scores, had an inspiration (some may call it a brain cramp) and announced that it plans to change the name of its cable TV, Internet and phone services to XFinity.
Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
Okay.
Comcast EVP, operations David Watson tells us the brilliance behind this re-branding maneuver:
“XFINITY represents the future of our company and it’s a promise to customers that we’ll keep innovating. When we launch XFINITY in a market, we’ll rebrand our products: XFINITY TV, XFINITY Voice and XFINITY Internet (our company, of course, remains Comcast). This transition is already well underway across the country. [On February 12], XFINITY will roll out in 11 markets including: Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington D.C., Chicago, Portland, Seattle, Hartford, Augusta, Chattanooga, parts of the Bay Area and San Francisco, with more markets to come later this year.”
This is the kind of crap that makes everyday consumers crazy and drives those of us in the marketing world to drink heavily <Ok … more heavily then we may normally do>.
Dear David at Comcast,
I don’t want you to promise me you will keep innovating I would like you to promise me you will show up at 10 when you say you will fix my TV so I can watch Oprah.
Sincerely,
XCustomer.
I have the utmost respect for Jeff Goodby and Goodby Silverstein (Comcast’s ad agency) but this is kind of nuts. I guess I can take some solace in that a Comcast representative confirmed that this is actually a Goodby, Siegel+Gale, and other agencies brain trust endeavor.
(although I would tend to blame Siegel+Gale as having been paid a boatload of money and arriving at some unbelievably “insightful in presentation but unrealistic in practicality” conclusion)
Well.
I guess if they spend enough money it will work.
Spend enough and people will forget Comcast and only remember XFinity.
But.
Here’s the deal. Every day they will still be delivering the same ole same ole (which ain’t so hot). Therefore, in the end they will have spent gobs of money on this new “brand” and achieve exactly the same results.
Some would tend to believe this is a definition of insanity. I just tend to believe this is a stupid idea.
Anyway.
And wouldn’t it have been cheaper if they had all sat in a conference room contemplating their navels?
I have written on a variety of issues with regard to running a business and effective organizations (Running a Business Part 1 and Part 2, Collaboration & Consensus Part 1 & Part 2).
But I came across this video which discusses “the surprising science of motivation.”
It is a long video (18+ minutes) and Daniel Pink, the presenter, is a little practiced on occasion in his delivery but the information is nice. There were two things in the video which I appreciated.
One I had felt but had never been able to confirm.
The other I already knew but hadn’t written about yet.
1. Motivation Incentives.
Maybe it’s because I have worked with several advertising agency owners who wanted to run their agencies like manufacturing plants, but this issue has been near and dear to my heart for quite awhile. The video talks about “carrot and stick” motivational techniques and crap like that.
He uses some nice simple illustrations and some fact based conclusions for why the typical ways we try to motivate each other fail in business today.
A Daniel Pink Quote:
“There’s a mismatch between what science knows and business does.”
Possibly because most of the organizations I have either consulted for or worked at have been more “idea driven” versus “product output” organizations I have always believed (maybe more a feeling) that financial based reward models sucked. Daniel finally gave me some facts (from studies):
“Once the task called for even rudimentary cognitive skills a larger reward led to poorer performance.”
“As long as task involved only mechanical skills, bonuses worked, i.e., higher pay = better performance.”
Halleluiah.
That isn’t to say people in a cognitive driven business shouldn’t be fairly compensated; it simply states that rewarding financially to increase productivity is not the most effective path.
So if it isn’t financial rewards, what does help productivity?
2. Constructed Autonomy.
This is all about self direction within a solid construct of vision and company ‘direction.’ This is something I have believed to be an effective characteristic of effective organizations for some time. It is most likely embodied within larger franchise organizations (in some form or fashion) but it is easier to see it in those organizations because they are obviously fragmented and local autonomy works within some “rules” construct.
So.
The video.
In addition to talking about motivating employee behavior he also talks about creating an environment for productivity. I wrote about this in Organizational Alignment.
But.
He reminded me when he discusses the idea of autonomy about what I call “constructed autonomy” environments (yup. I do love contradictions).
I used the whole Constructed Autonomy idea in a consulting presentation in early spring (with a source reference) as I discussed organizational alignment and creating the most effective organization.
I apologize but for the life of me I cannot dig up the source for that autonomy business idea but I believe there was a big European based study on organizational behavior that talks about it (if I can find that presentation on some thumb drive I will source it).
My “twist” on the Autonomy thing was to tie it to a tightly constructed organizational vision. To me it’s all about giving employees within the organization lots of freedom within a well defined construct (not a box but rather a guiding star they can always locate).
Ok.
Maybe not lots of freedom but enough freedom on some key things (whatever they may be that is relevant to that particular organization).
Ok.
So here’s the deal with Autonomy.
Every time I have used the word “autonomy” to an organizational owner, President, Sr. VP, whatever…their faces pale, hands grip the table a little harder, they may even gasp a little and their voices quiver slightly with fear.
Autonomy means lack of control.
Autonomy means I need to trust my employees.
Autonomy means “so then what do I do”? (sorry, had to throw that last one in).
But autonomy on the ground:
permits a slight level of localization (if that is relevant to an organization)
certainly creates a higher level of responsiveness (good for customer satisfaction)
actually is a good idea/innovation generator (as long as you have a feedback mechanism)
automatically creates a higher level of energy within an organization
builds a happier organization because it creates a stronger sense of ownership & responsibility
It takes a strong leader with a clearly articulated vision to make autonomy work within an organization (if you don’t, then autonomy simply fragments an organization by permitting pieces to go flying off in every direction aimlessly).
So.
That’s the “Constructed” portion of it. In my Running a Business Part 2 I described this as one end of the bookends. A clearly articulated vision, mission, okay … what ‘the organization is going to be good at’. And ruthlessly good at.
If that is provided as the “North Star,” then Autonomy always knows what direction to steer toward. And because of that North Star, autonomous groups can wander slightly but have an opportunity to course correct (
which, by the way, is also a good evaluation mechanism for employees).
There you go.
A nice video sparking some clarification on my part.
I have always believed the moment you own a contradiction is the moment you capture an emotional and intellectual awareness.
I encountered one on Tuesday.
Letting go and holding on.
That was the day my 15 year old dog died. That morning I was ready to let go and wanted to hold on.
Walking into the vet with my dog’s head resting on my shoulder I had already said goodbye alone at home. I was ready to let go.
And yet.
When I laid him down on his towel at the vet I asked for a couple minutes more.
I wanted to hold on. What I chose to do was scratch him behind his ear and say goodbye. I know he couldn’t feel it. It was more for me then it was for him. But. It was my last time to hold on to him before I let go.
Illustrator Harry Grant Dart’s vision of the increasingly aggressive and intrusive character of advertising in turn-of-the-century America appeared in a 1909 issue of Life. During this period, the growth of mass production and mass marketing changed the way consumer goods were bought and sold. Information about products now came not from those who made or sold them, but from persuasive advertisements trying to create brand recognition and brand loyalty. Advertisements moved out of separate sections in the back of magazines, as the newest periodicals featured full-page ads and depended upon advertising, rather than subscriptions, for their revenue. Coordinated advertising campaigns using billboards, store displays, and electric signs, became common.
I am not sure if this is a rant or a diatribe. But. I read something the other day about making brands indispensable.
Okay. Let’s talk about indispensable. Sure. Many great traditions dictate some “indispensable” actions.
Getting married and diamonds.
New Years Eve and alcohol.
Love and flowers.
Emotional traditions are the strongest links to indispensable.
How about functional indispensables?
Water. Food. And beer (to college kids).
An indispensable brand? (harrumph. Bet you haven’t seen that in awhile)
To me … to believe you can make your brand indispensable is pure & simple marketing arrogance.
You can make it useful.
You can intertwine it in a positive way into the lives of people.
You can even make people emotional about it.
Indispensable? To the wacky few maybe (yeah. We have all seen that guy who only buys Coke apparel and products for his family every Christmas. And maybe the pez connoisseur.) But don’t be fooled by these fanatical few. You love ‘em as a manufacturer (oops, brand). But you can’t build a brand around them. In fact in some cases you hesitate to make too big deal about them.
Brands become “brands” because a certain group of people have deigned to anoint your product as such.
And the most loyal of this group are probably “head over heels in like” with you.
I purposefully use like here.
In today’s world “brand love” is not a common thing (maybe in the 50’s when people had fewer choices and no internet to create educational doubt). The best it seems to get resides “in like.” What that means is the brand is not even close to being indispensable; rather it is always one mistake away from “I like you but I want to date other people.”
So how do you remain “a head over heels in like brand”?
First and foremost. Usefulness.
Yup. Pretty functional <and boring> but pretty essential. Some marketing expert folks call this the ‘price-value equation.’ Whatever. Just be clear about this. The moment your brand does not meet use expectations it has become dispensable. And people just won’t like you any more <that is bad>. That is why I made this first and foremost.
Second. Equal emotional engagement, i.e., do you like me as much as I like you?
True brands have emotional things attached to the functional usefulness. To make it an ongoing relationship both sides have to communicate the emotion. Buyers do it with dollars and displaying your logo. Sellers do it … well … with whatever may match the emotional relationship.
Here is what I mean (let me be a guy for a moment). While I could give “things” to someone I date all the time nothing trumps a good “hey … I love you” in words. Oh. And the love is reciprocated in some way. Hey. Does that mean all gifts (i.e., loyalty programs, promotions, etc.) are unnecessary? Nope. It’s balance. Buyers & sellers need some balance to maintain the emotional aspect of the relationship. Gifts are part of it and words are part of it and … well .. just as with any relationship … there is are lots of moving parts. But both have to believe it is worth it and it’s not just ‘wooing’ (I wanted to type that word) by the seller all the time.
Hey.
If you read any of my other stuff you will see a strong thread of “dreamer” (or belief in aspirational) objectives in my belief infrastructure. I like thinking big <personally and in business>. I like dreaming. And believe it has value in organizational management. But, with ‘brands? I just struggle with “indispensable.”
No. I do not struggle … I just do not buy it.
Just a last thought on this.
I do think of brands as marriages.
Think of it this way … in a ‘courting phase’ I believe it is unhealthy for one to try and make themselves look indispensable in seeking a long term relationship. In addition I also tend to believe if one partner purposefully seeks to be indispensable in a relationship it is unhealthy.
Great marriages are some give and take. Some communication. Some respect. And the understanding that you are “right” for each other and imperfections … well … can make it a perfect fit.
And I also believe the moment one partner feels indispensable things are out of whack. But, hey, I am no Dr. Phil. And I am no “Brand Expert.” This is just my opinion.
I talk with them about what it takes to be successful in a career (and life).
My favorite topic to discuss is “character.”
I describe it as a fork in the road. Okay. A shitload of forks in the road.
A moment, or moments, where you have a choice which helps define who you will be moving forward in life.
I ceratainly never mean to suggest I know “the right path” … all I mean I that we all have choices to do “the right thing” or “the wrong thing” and those types of decisions go a long way to defining “once and for all who you are.”
The other thing I happen to mention which I oddly enough learned in the advertising world … each moment matters.
If you find an excuse to not do what is best one moment … well … the next moment is even easier to not do the right thing -… and then the next thing you know you are on the slippery slope and you cannot get off.
Anyway.
This is a Life truth. And don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.