I believe the amount of time people spend on developing or thinking of taglines is nuts. Yes. They are important but in the scheme of things I would envision if you are analyzing your time (or people’s time in general) by billable hour, the amount of time invested in this type of thing is … well … not a good investment.
Second.
Here is why I think the time invested is out of whack. In general, here are the guidelines for developing a brand line.
If the company/brand name is more aspirational/inspirational, or less descriptive, like Nike’s company name, err on the side of aiming for a more descriptive tagline telling people what the company offers or does (like Nike’s original line of “superior performance athletic shoes”).
If the company/brand name is more descriptive of the product/service that is being offered then the tagline can assume a more aspirational feel & direction.
The exception: when a company has achieved such a strong awareness that it has achieved a brand status, meaning that people know what the company actually does/offers, a tagline can take on more of an aspirational aspect (use Nike as an example when it shifted to “Just do IT” after they had attained 90+% awareness).
Third.
The main rule of the road for descriptor/tagline development:
When the logo/name of company and tagline are stand-alone, make sure people can tell you exactly what that company does or offers. In other words, don’t be tricky or creative and lose an opportunity to be clear about who and what you are. And this is REALLY important when you come out of the starting blocks. Look. You can always change later. Upfront be clear. Making people guess (and you don’t have enough money to answer their guessing) is a silly investment.
Why? Anything other than meeting that main rule translates into having to invest a lot of money, and time effort, to educate people.
There you go.
All these “inspirational taglines” and such are kinda silly.
Do other things to inspire people.
Plus. I am also a believer that a tagline can change. Almost as often as you would like (as long as it stays in the same sphere of character).
I have been slamming on our government in some of my posts lately.
It is probably more a sign of frustration than anything to do with democracy (because I am a huge democracy fan).
So.
I will try and back off by offering them a couple of thoughts (should any of them deign to read my little post) and an idea to discuss.
1. Please remember our forefathers:
“I am not a Virginian, but an American.”
Said in speech in the first Continental Congress, 1774, by Patrick Henry.
You will see my idea (a proposed solution) below but at minimum if they could remember that while representing local constituents they are Americans. And making choices for the good of America not just locally (and sometimes what is not good for local may be good for “the whole”). We need to remember Henry is known for his “Give me Liberty, or give me Death!” speech.
He is remembered as one of the most influential, radical advocates of the American Revolution and republicanism, especially in his denunciations of corruption in government officials and his defense of historic rights.
2. Take a field trip to the Lincoln Memorial:
While they all probably walk by the memorial every day, maybe there should be an organized field trip so they can all take a moment and reflect. They can use the time to reflect on a time when the country was divided and Americans were killing Americans. And what it took to lead at that time and reconnect a divided nation.
We aren’t killing each other (at least only figuratively at the moment) but divisiveness is running rampant. And they are feeding the divisiveness. We elect them to lead us not just to follow us (or what we say). They should stand in the shadow of the memorial to one of our greatest leaders and remind themselves of that.
When in DC I have to admit that when standing in front of the Lincoln Memorial I feel the enormity of leadership responsibility as well as the greatness of America. The House Representatives and Senate members could use a good dose of that feeling.
So.
Here is the idea.
I don’t really like politics or pay much attention to it. Because I tend to be straightforward and logical and politics is anything but straightforward and logical.
Ok.
I have a random, completely non-doable solution (which reminds us that unreasonable ideas are often reasonable solutions to problems):
I am willing to let everyone currently in office serve an additional term with no election.
Just once.
They can act and vote as “Americans” without fear of “oh. I won’t get reelected if I do what I believe is the right thing to do”.
This idea has 2 obvious benefits:
Their decisions have some time to actually come to fruition to show some valid proof versus getting slammed solely for a voting record.
The country gets to save all that money and time that gets invested in trying to prove why you should vote for “X” politician.
(a male view of the Valentine’s situation having also accumulated a zillion research data points over multiple beer events discussing everything but Valentine’s Day)
All this talk about Valentine’s Day being created by Hallmark, the myth behind St. Valentine … a massacre for god’s sake.
Confusing.
Well … maybe confusing to some but I have put some strategic thought to this whole concept.
Because the thought behind it is really very simple.
Basically we men are idiots <that is the theorem underpinning>.
Therefore Valentine’s Day plays an important role in a “stimulus-response” type model for men.
The day is a valuable stimulus to stop us from thinking solely with our dumb stick and with some random portion of our brain that isn’t being used for sports, work, alcohol, oogling <not ogling … there is a difference>, mindless daydreaming or sleeping.
Below you will see a diagram that outlines how we think without Valentine’s day and then with Valentine’s day.
(click on the image for a larger, somewhat more legible version)
As you see.
Valentine’s Day is not something created by Hallmark.
Nor is it stupid.
It is an important event with a use benefiting men <kind of like the Super Bowl and March Madness but not as important>.
Strategically Valentine’s Day makes sense to the existence of men <and possibly romance but in a non linear way>.
“… 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?
This is about the Boy Scouts and the Girl Scouts … and little things <but big differences>.
Sometimes in the business world we are always seeking something big.
I know for sure that everyone wants to make a big impact <sales, results, behavior, etc.>. But we are almost always seeking the ‘big’ when something small may be the path to success.
Sometimes we invest so much energy into trying to find something big to make a big impact when something very little can create a big impact.
In addition … sometimes trying to convince people to do something small … takes a big effort <because if it looks small people seem to worry it will not be noticed>.
In any case … small can make a big difference.
Ok.
What do I mean?
Let me use two organizations I think very highly of and wish they were doing better:
Girl Scouts
Boy Scouts
Let me begin by saying my sister was a Girl Scout (and I don’t hold that against her or the girl scouts) … and I beat up Boy Scouts (and I am hoping they don’t hold that against me).
It was right for her … and maybe not so right for me.
But.
That said.
I believe the organizations are very right for younger generations.
Particularly for the current generation and the next generation (which I call the Global generation).
The values and responsibility teachings they share are invaluable to creating a foundation for responsible humanity <and doing the right thing>.
In addition, while some things may seem archaic in their teachings, they create a nuts & bolts type timelessness of practical life (which is something I believe is often underrated in this world of “we need to stay ahead of the curve”).
I guess what I mean by that is maybe showing youth what was behind the curve may be helpful in life.
But, hey, that’s me.
Anyway.
Both these organizations seem trapped in an outdated image. Perceptionwise not appearing relevant.
<note:
I use perceptionwise because I believe in reality if you took the time to look inside, many of the things they share are quite relevant>
But I believe some little things could help make a big impact on perceptions.
For example.
Boy Scouts … who would love to communicate they are not ‘lily white’ and are all inclusive … could use the current words in their vision statement (meaning I am not trying to change who they are and what they stand for) and simply communicate those same words in a different style.
Say graffiti.
It says the same thing they have always been saying but also says so many other things.
Little change. Big difference in perception.
And imagine LL Cool J, an ex boy scout, standing in front of these words … talking about the Boy Scouts.
Well.
I am no genius but I can almost guarantee people would not only be thinking about the Boy Scouts … but they would be starting to think about them in a different way.
Ok.
Next.
And how about the Girl Scouts?
How do we show they are inclusive and relevant?
How about showcasing the “new green.”
Young girls, and den mothers or whatever they are called, with green fingernail polish, green eye shadow, green streaks in their hair, whatever … you get the idea.
The green becomes a badge for cool, relevant inclusiveness … and the fact the organization is open to things other than add-a-beads (I think that’s what they are called) and pleated skirts (gosh. I am hoping they are not cool again).
Once again this is using little things to create the response you are looking for.
Is this big?
Nope.
It is something little.
But makes some big strides in moving both organizations in the direction they want to go.
I would kill to help both of these organizations.
I believe in what they are all about and the intent behind their vision.
I am probably a little liberal for their tastes but I believe what makes any good liberal a great liberal is a foundation of some good ole conservative responsibility and values.
Anyway.
The point of this isn’t ‘being liberal’ or conservative, it is that little things can make a pretty darn big impact.
The strategic foundation is so simple and clearly good it is a worthwhile read for anyone in business. Whether you actually use the disruption methodology or not the idea of positioning in a way to create disruption (and therefore being distinct) is a powerful concept.
Drawing from experiences as the founder and chair of a global advertising agency, Dru gives us this practical, refreshing approach to thinking about advertising, positioning a business in the marketplace and … well … thinking in general.
His compelling concept of “disruption” is a three-step reasoning process for creating a set of new visions for successful growth.
Dru first explores how firms can get in a rut with their advertising strategies.
He then offers hundreds of examples of advertising in Europe, the United States, and Japan to explore cultural differences and government rules and regulations about advertising. Dru’s last section provides more detail and looks toward the future.
Rich with examples, this timely book is recommended for advertising-agency and marketing professionals as well as for corporate executives, consultants, and advanced students and academicians.
I have written on a variety of issues with regard to running a business and effective organizations (Running a Business Part 1 and Part 2, Collaboration & Consensus Part 1 & Part 2).
But I came across this video which discusses “the surprising science of motivation.”
It is a long video (18+ minutes) and Daniel Pink, the presenter, is a little practiced on occasion in his delivery but the information is nice. There were two things in the video which I appreciated.
One I had felt but had never been able to confirm.
The other I already knew but hadn’t written about yet.
1. Motivation Incentives.
Maybe it’s because I have worked with several advertising agency owners who wanted to run their agencies like manufacturing plants, but this issue has been near and dear to my heart for quite awhile. The video talks about “carrot and stick” motivational techniques and crap like that.
He uses some nice simple illustrations and some fact based conclusions for why the typical ways we try to motivate each other fail in business today.
A Daniel Pink Quote:
“There’s a mismatch between what science knows and business does.”
Possibly because most of the organizations I have either consulted for or worked at have been more “idea driven” versus “product output” organizations I have always believed (maybe more a feeling) that financial based reward models sucked. Daniel finally gave me some facts (from studies):
“Once the task called for even rudimentary cognitive skills a larger reward led to poorer performance.”
“As long as task involved only mechanical skills, bonuses worked, i.e., higher pay = better performance.”
Halleluiah.
That isn’t to say people in a cognitive driven business shouldn’t be fairly compensated; it simply states that rewarding financially to increase productivity is not the most effective path.
So if it isn’t financial rewards, what does help productivity?
2. Constructed Autonomy.
This is all about self direction within a solid construct of vision and company ‘direction.’ This is something I have believed to be an effective characteristic of effective organizations for some time. It is most likely embodied within larger franchise organizations (in some form or fashion) but it is easier to see it in those organizations because they are obviously fragmented and local autonomy works within some “rules” construct.
So.
The video.
In addition to talking about motivating employee behavior he also talks about creating an environment for productivity. I wrote about this in Organizational Alignment.
But.
He reminded me when he discusses the idea of autonomy about what I call “constructed autonomy” environments (yup. I do love contradictions).
I used the whole Constructed Autonomy idea in a consulting presentation in early spring (with a source reference) as I discussed organizational alignment and creating the most effective organization.
I apologize but for the life of me I cannot dig up the source for that autonomy business idea but I believe there was a big European based study on organizational behavior that talks about it (if I can find that presentation on some thumb drive I will source it).
My “twist” on the Autonomy thing was to tie it to a tightly constructed organizational vision. To me it’s all about giving employees within the organization lots of freedom within a well defined construct (not a box but rather a guiding star they can always locate).
Ok.
Maybe not lots of freedom but enough freedom on some key things (whatever they may be that is relevant to that particular organization).
Ok.
So here’s the deal with Autonomy.
Every time I have used the word “autonomy” to an organizational owner, President, Sr. VP, whatever…their faces pale, hands grip the table a little harder, they may even gasp a little and their voices quiver slightly with fear.
Autonomy means lack of control.
Autonomy means I need to trust my employees.
Autonomy means “so then what do I do”? (sorry, had to throw that last one in).
But autonomy on the ground:
permits a slight level of localization (if that is relevant to an organization)
certainly creates a higher level of responsiveness (good for customer satisfaction)
actually is a good idea/innovation generator (as long as you have a feedback mechanism)
automatically creates a higher level of energy within an organization
builds a happier organization because it creates a stronger sense of ownership & responsibility
It takes a strong leader with a clearly articulated vision to make autonomy work within an organization (if you don’t, then autonomy simply fragments an organization by permitting pieces to go flying off in every direction aimlessly).
So.
That’s the “Constructed” portion of it. In my Running a Business Part 2 I described this as one end of the bookends. A clearly articulated vision, mission, okay … what ‘the organization is going to be good at’. And ruthlessly good at.
If that is provided as the “North Star,” then Autonomy always knows what direction to steer toward. And because of that North Star, autonomous groups can wander slightly but have an opportunity to course correct (
which, by the way, is also a good evaluation mechanism for employees).
There you go.
A nice video sparking some clarification on my part.
I have recently read three articles on decriminalization:
One on Portugal’s national drug decriminalization program.
One on a local US program which didn’t decriminalize but attacked the problem with a treatment option (in High Point, NC).
And an article from Cynthia Tucker in the Atlanta Journal Constitution.
To be clear. Decriminalizing drug usage is not about making drugs legal. It remains illegal, in particular selling of drugs is a felony, but users & possessors are given the opportunity to be treated rather than punished. And I would like to also note that decriminalization isn’t selective to the drug. It’s not just about marijuana but everything (yes. Including heroin, crack, etc.).
I don’t want to get into a debate on “punishment matching the crime” I simply want to make a point on solving a problem. I read that oftentimes our existing programs are driven by the fact that voters want vengeance and politicians (wanting the voters) accommodate their requests and set up strong punishment programs. But after awhile even the most naïve have to see that whatever we are doing isn’t working.
Portugal is a wonderful example of how a treatment decriminalization program can positively affect usage numbers and all the violence that is typically associated with a thriving drug community.
Decriminalizing versus legal. Just to be sure everyone is on same page. Drug usage in Portugal is still illegal and drugs are confiscated when in possession and offenders are sent before a commission. What this means is that instead of entering the judiciary system (or legal system), offenders are sent to “dissuasion commissions.”
This encourages addicts to seek treatment (without fear of legal repercussions) and stop recreational users from falling into addiction.
And it works. Addicts entered into drug substitution programs have risen from 6000 to 24000, 1999 to 2008. Drug usage (trial) in general has decreased. And most notably, drug usage among vulnerable younger age groups has declined.
The evidence from Portugal since 2001 is that decriminalization of drug use and possession has benefits and no harmful side effects (headline in August 2009 The Economist). So the United States, which has been mired for years in discussion of whether marijuana should be legal or not, maybe should take a bigger view on things. Or maybe get some perspective at minimum. I am not a drug user (unless you count Advil)…well…not anymore at least.
As the article points out, when Portugal created this legislation there were no lack of doomsayers across Europe (“pure lunacy” … “planeloads of people would head to Algrave to smoke marijuana” … it kind of makes me think of Bill Murray in “Ghostbusters” … “madness. dogs and cats living together”).
To top it off, earlier this year an American research company (yes. American) published a study stating:
“In numerous categories Portugal drug usage is now among the lowest in the European Union”
Is Portugal the USA? Surely not. Does it showcase an example worth pursuing? Absolutely.
To me selling and trafficking drugs is a crime. And deserves to be punished. Using drugs is not a crime…it is a problem that needs treatment. Once again I am forced to point out (because most people who challenge and debate bring it up) there will be exceptions. But, please remember, you don’t build programs based on serving the exceptions. You develop successful programs to meet the majority.
While I envision that writing my thoughts on this stemmed from the fact I guess I never really thought that hard about how to help resolve a drug problem (beyond the fact I thought burning fields in Columbia didn’t seem to be a great long term solution), this whole decriminalization and community support talk has reminded me of a lesson. “Treating the problem” is often not as popular (it sometimes appears to the public to not have a strong enough sense of urgency), but it is often the most effective path. Maybe it is time America should think of a program like Portugal’s.
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.