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?
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 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.
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 mainreason. 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.
Vendor relationships are always tricky … a vendor is hired for an expertise and yet the ‘hirer’ mentally wants a … well … vendor.
This means most Client/Agency/Service Supplier relationships are a balancing act.
The best relationships represent a combination of two experts constantly challenging each other, finding times when each is, respectfully, right or wrong, and throw in a good dose of actually liking each other. But typically before you get to the relationship part you have to consummate a deal.
It is because of this I call this “the art of the deal” (see the upcoming Client Agency Relationships Part 2: the Art of the Relationships for a relationship point of view) because, philosophically, how you strike ‘the deal’ often dictates what becomes the ultimate client/agency relationship.
In other words, often the success of that relationship is dictated by how well the initial deal was struck.
As for who is responsible for making a good deal?
Well, while I have seen Client/Agency relationships sour because of either party, I would suggest that agencies more often than not are most culpable for failures and bear the brunt of the responsibility in establishing the deal. Having sat down in dozens of meetings between an agency and a prospective client I have seen the good and the bad unfold not only as the deal is being consummated but also after the meeting as the deal unfolds. I have seen how agency people rush towards the finish line saying anything that needs to be said to get there.
And I have seen the expressions on the faces of the people back at the agency when they have seen what promises have been made to make the deal.
And, bottom line, I have seen that I don’t want to go through that disappointment when facing my own people.
It is very simple if you stick to your guns. I suggest there are six critical steps to sealing a good deal (and having a hope of a successful relationship).
Let’s call this what it takes to stand up and feel good about shaking hands on the deal as the contract is ready to get signed.
1. Alignment of Expectations:
Nothing is worse than if either side of the partnership (or dealmakers) is expecting something the other partner is not prepared to do, or even worse, cannot do.
2. Communicate:
Alignment means both parties need to communicate. This means clearly articulating expectations and capabilities to meet expectations.
Am I meeting your needs?
Am I meeting your expectations?
Both sides asking questions. Both sides talking to each other. Sometimes it is a dialogue. Sometimes it is simply asking the correct questions. But each of those options includes speaking versus silence.
3. Honesty:
Good communication requires honesty. Honesty with yourself first and foremost, i.e., can I honestly say we are doing a good job? And, of course, “I need to be honest now or it could continue to build up into big trouble.” Honest discussion on the good and the bad. It’s easy to talk about the good stuff, more difficult on the hard things. ‘Fess up honestly in all cases and you earn trust.
4. Respect:
Honesty is typically best when there is mutual respect. Respect speaks for itself. We all feel good when respected.
5. Compensation:
If you have the 1st four right (alignment, communicate, honesty, respect) then the money discussion becomes easier, not easy, but certainly easier.
It’s a value equation. Agencies need to feel like they are being fairly compensated for actions. Clients need to believe they are receiving valuable activity/action. And there needs to be an alignment on this value equation or it becomes a battle of nickels & dimes and instead of talking business you are constantly talking about money (and that is bad).
6. Chemistry:
Finally, it always helps if you like each other. It doesn’t have to be ‘best friends’ but if each party respects and likes each other than there is at least a fighting chance to make it through the tough times as well as truly enjoying/celebrating the good times. “Double the joys and halve the griefs” as it has been said.
Conclusion:
That is what makes a great deal between a Client and an Agency/Service Supplier.
I know, it sounds simple, but it is harder than it looks. The sight of the finish line makes people do and say funny things (and it can certainly create amnesia with regard to knowing the “right thing to do”).
Agencies want to make the deal (and that desire can blind you to some things).
So.
In the end?
Take a deep breath when you are getting ready to cross the finish line and ask yourself do you really want to win. Ask yourself honestly are you clear on all six criteria. And ask yourself the hard question even if it is at the last minute – did you really want to run this particular race and was it really the right race for you?
“Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the men of old; seek what they sought.”
–
Matsuo Basho
===============
Well.
It sometimes seems like a fine line between being doomed to repeat past mistakes … and actually learning from history.
And I say that as a history nut and someone who loves anything to do with the past.
Well.
Except maybe just doing what was done in the past.
Anyway.
As I have said I am a collector of moments and I imagine this is just another facet of that warped personal characteristic. When I saw this quote I finally figured out how to explain what I saw in studying the past.
There are so many people in the business world (and government) who seem very focused on ignoring history. They almost seem to actively decide to repeat behavior … assuming, I imagine, that it will inevitably generate the desired response. I assume that is based on some warped version of “practice makes perfect” or possibly “we will just do it better than they did.”
All I can say for sure is that blind ignorance leads to stupidity.
And maybe what is worse is this is conscious choiceful ignorance.
And, harshly, it seems like it incorporates even a little lazy.
But … bottom line … it is silly stupidity because with a little curiosity you can better understand that people in the past were pretty smart.
They often sought the same things we do now.
And while the path they chose may not have gotten them there there is value in walking the path to see what they saw.
To be clear.
You do not have to do what they did … simply see what they saw.
That, in itself, is learning … well … that is … if you choose to see it.