Here is the idea:

Great companies need at least one unreasonable person.

I just wrote something about collaboration & consensus so I have been thinking about this issue and companies strewn with reasonable people.

So … here is the key issue when you start talking about collaboration and inevitably consensus.

Collaboration can certainly lead to some great creativity. Consensus kills it. I heard a great line on the television show West Wing:

“We are a country of centrists.”

Companies are exactly the same.

In general, large organizations are groups of centrists.

Why?

Companies are strewn with reasonable people. People whose main criterion is “making sense”.

They bludgeon you with the “why does it make sense?” club every chance they get. They are the sensible people that keep companies from fiscal irresponsibility and in general keep the company out of the ditch.

(If I had a picture of every CFO I have met they would all go here)

To them everything has to have a reason. It has to all make sense.

Working with the smartest of these people (and please don’t believe because they are exceedingly reasonable that they are not often brilliant business people) means you are constantly running an escalating gauntlet of objections when you suggest a seemingly unreasonable (or nonsensible) idea.

“I’ve learned any fool can write a bad ad, but it takes a real genius to keep his hands off a good one.”

Leo Burnett, American marketing expert

Each sensible objection begets another sensible objection.

And it gets tiring (as well as the odds are in their favor they will ultimately get to the objection where you are forced to respond “because it feels like the right thing to do” … which is … uhm … the kiss of death to the idea).

So.

If you always did what the reasonable people want you to do, you will maintain your speed (sometimes you may go a little faster and sometimes a little slower) and you will drive right down the middle of the racetrack.

Sure.

You will never hit a wall or run off the track. But at some point someone will pass you (don’t worry … some of those guys have no clue what they are doing and will crash).

By the way, the crashers are probably a team strewn with unreasonable people who drive their reasonable few crazy. Unfortunately, some of those guys who pass you really do have their act together and most likely some unreasonable person figured out a way of getting people to endorse the ‘unlikely.’

In my never ending search for absurd displays of branding I feel fortunate to be able to discuss Nigeria. And their brand <and branding … and brand building>>

Nigeria’s new branding campaign was developed to bring in tourists and economic development.

“Nigeria: Good People. Great Nation.”

(this was a follow up to their last campaign … “Nigeria, heart of Africa.”)

Okay.

I have never visited Nigeria so I may have a naïve point of view. But. Here are three news items in the last month about Nigeria:

• A prominent Nigerian comic actor who is famous for singing a song about e-mail scams has been kidnapped.

• Nigeria appears to be shedding the toga of being one of the most corrupt nations in the world. In the 2008 Global Integrity report released recently,  Nigeria is listed among the gainers, with a plus 10 marks from its 2007 rating. This means that Nigeria has improved from its previous rating.

• James Ezuma, the embattled proprietor of Ezuma Private Hospital, Aba, who is standing trial at an Umuahia High Court for illegal sale of babies, can no longer move around like other free people do. He moves around under the protection of heavily armed Bakassi Boys, a vigilante group that operates in most states in the South-East.

In addition, a consultancy specializing in economic development assessment listed Lagos <largest city in Nigeria> as the world’s worst place for expatriates to live because of poor sanitation, horrible roads and violent crime.

Hmmmmm…

“Good People. Great Nation.”

Okay. Maybe the good people don’t live in Lagos and live elsewhere in the great nation.

Look.

I am sure there are good people doing their best in this country, but an outsider would have to question how many … and are there enough <so you were able to live long enough to enjoy the Great Nation>.

This all becomes a huge disconnect for me on this.

First and foremost this has all the signs of someone overthinking … oh … and thinking unrealistically. Ok. Maybe thinking fantasyland type stuff.

And as a corollary to that thought … no one of the Good People stood up and said “is this Good for us? Really?”What really baffles <or befuddles … I get them confused> me is that this seems a common sense issue.

To me this has become an example of someone developing a brand image of “who I want to be” and deciding to tell people “I am this already” and reality suggests “hey, you have a ways to go yet before I may believe this.” <that is a marketing formula or postulate or something in there>

This campaign becomes wasted money.

In addition I could argue it is detrimental to future work in that Nigeria will be eventually digging itself out of a ‘distrusted’ hole to try and become trusted in some way.

Would I tackle this problem? Sure. It can be done.

But before they begin another marketing campaign they probably need to remember something – marketing has to be an extension of who you are as a company/brand/country. Because the rubber hits the road when words are faced with actual human interaction.

I believe it was The Limited who said “the brand is what is delivered in the store every day.”

(and they didn’t do any advertising)

In the end … a brand is not words but actions (and the net result of interactions). Nigeria seems to have some work to do to meet these criteria.They seem to need more Good People <in marketing and living in Lagos>.

Think about all of this the next time you talk about a branding campaign.

=======

“Never interrupt the enemy when he is making a mistake.”

Napoleon Bonaparte

========

Well.

This quote always reminds me of patience. I have always liked this quote.

So often we are in a rush to “do something” where patience is called for.

Napoleon’s strategies have been examined and torn apart by more expert analysis than I would be capable of doing, but I would say two things.

1. In general he selected great commanders of his armies and delegated initiative to respond.

2. His strength as a general was not in planning but responding. He put himself in situations. Waited. And responded. And won often.

This quote reminds me of patience and delegation.

—————

There is a tide in the affairs of men
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries.
On such a full sea are we now afloat,
And we must take the current when it serves,
Or lose our ventures. (IV.ii.269–276)

William Shakespeare

========

I am not a big classic literature guy. I struggle to slog my way through things like the works of Shakespeare. But I truly appreciate the well articulated sound bite whenever it is written.

I love this one.

To me, it is a reminder that opportunities in life are fleeting, but there are many if you pay attention.

It is nice to remind yourself there are many opportunities ebbing and flowing in front of us (because then you stop dwelling on regrets). And  I am not just opportunities to succeed or do things … but also to laugh and love and live. We should seek these tides and enjoy them rather than simply float aimlessly on some ocean of time.

Of course.

Some literary expert will probably tell me I completely missed the point. But. This is my website. And my thought on the quote.

Here is the thought:

Collaboration and Consensus often generate a generalist idea.

In other words … mediocrity.

In the end the consensus ideas may be appealing to the masses (and therefore the group in general) but lacks the distinctness and “edges” that could differentiate it.

Okay.

That said (before I start hearing the screams of anguish from everyone who advocates the power of collaboration).

Hey.

I am all for collaboration. I believe it uncovers well-rounded ideas and sometimes even creates that unique “wow” idea in discussion. But collaboration is like a bell curve.

In the beginning, because collaboration doesn’t come naturally to specialists (and it shouldn’t because specialists are good at what they do because they are…well…specialized), you are at the bottom side of the bell curve. This time in the collaboration process is pretty nonproductive and there is (or should be) a lot of banging together of different disciplines and knowledge.

That’s okay.

I call this stage “positive friction.” Some pushing and shoving and jostling for ideas.

Somehow the collaborators involved learn to collaborate (typically there is some generalist who is better than others at figuring out how to not only get everyone to “play well together” but also figure out what pieces of the puzzle are most interesting and useful and get them placed on the table to discuss). And ideas start flowing and being discussed and debated.

==

“Stop discussing how serious the problem is, and get serious about finding an immediate solution to it.”

—–

Terry Mark

Ok.

This is a business lesson from September 14^th 1812.

…………. burning of Moscow …….

.

The beginning of the lesson?

On September 14^th 1812, the Russians set fire to Moscow in the face of Napoleon Bonaparte’s troops.

Yup.

The governor of Moscow herded out most of the Moscow residents and burned almost 80% of the city.

Just as a reminder to all non-historians…this began the demise of Napoleon’s reign. This action not only permitted Russia to defeat Napoleon by forcing a debilitating retreat back to France, but it also began the demise of the Grand Armee of France.

The point of this is… well … how far would you go to solve your business problem?

What happened on this date should make us all think about what we in the business world would sacrifice to win.

Look.

Do you imagine there was consensus in this Moscow discussion & decision?

Okay.

So.

Can you imagine the first guy who stood up and said “hey, I have an idea, how about we purposely burn Moscow so they can’t have it?” (of course all said in Russian, probably after several liters of vodka, to the Czar and probably a couple of Cossack bodyguards … who have some very sharp swords)

Someone had some kahones. And I hesitate to believe many people in today’s business world have that type of kahones.

The tough decisions are … well … tough. And they are even tougher when your survival is at stake.

So would you be willing to burn your burn your business to win in the face of overwhelming odds?

Ok.

What ARE you willing to do to win?

Heck.

Maybe most importantly.

When you look at your situation do you even recognize how desperate your situation is?

<remember … someone in Russia recognized, and had the balls to say something about, the fact they were about to get their ass kicked>

The business landscape is strewn with the wreckage of businesses that did not envision their own demise.

Next.

Someone “stepped out of the box” with a solution. Ok. They actually stepped ‘into the box’ and said … “let’s destroy the box.’

And let’s be clear.

I have to imagine neither of these points, as stated above, were popular, well-received nor accepted as a “so what do we do” type of moment.

Anyway.

One of the most difficult things a company can do is address their situation in the market.

In general I believe most companies and businesses are pretty good at assessing their situation in the marketplace. I, for one, have been in a number of those types of meetings where everyone sits down and honestly assesses the difficult position they are in.

I also have been through too many meetings where that same business just isn’t willing to do what it takes to resolve the situation.

Hey.

I am not suggesting this is an easy discussion (but at least we don’t have Cossacks with really sharp swords standing around us while we are discussing what to do).

So.

Are you willing to put 80% of everything you have up in flames to win?

I guess it depends on whether you believe the situation merits it. And that is a toughie for sure because we are certainly a country and group of optimists and in general we always believe there is a positive horizon. And burning ‘the city’ isn’t necessary.

But.

What if it is?

Would you recognize it?

Would someone in your group recognize it?

Oh.

And if someone did would you listen?

Look.

I don’t have the answers. And I am not suggesting every situation demands “burning the city.”

But.

This date in history reminds us that sometimes extreme situations demand extreme solutions.

In the end?

Keep your eyes open. And keep your mind open to solutions.

Sometimes the extreme solution, while scary, is the right solution.

I recently had a couple of conversation where I was being asked a lot of questions about new business, positioning a company and all that sort of stuff. Of course that type of conversation wanders thru strategic strength, criteria of ‘what you want’ (call the criteria fun, fame, and fortune) and how to grow a business smartly (and a half dozen other topics).

In both cases they were pleased with the conversation and asked if I had a process they could use to help guide the people around them in this discussion.

Whew.

Bring up one of my pet soapboxes.

Well.

Having worked my way thru these issues at least a hundred times … yes … I have a process. In fact I probably have 5 or 6 effective processes. Okay. I probably have a thread of questions that probably need to be answered to effectively reach a conclusion.

Suffice it to say most situations relate to a continuum of “who am I now, where am I now, where do I want to be, how do I want to be seen in the end.” I have seen consultants and positioning experts apply a variety of words and “voodoo” process systems to attack these same questions over and over again.

To me it’s kind of silly to have one process to attack this. Especially if you believe the solution resides within the company itself (or whomever is asking the questions) rather than the answer residing within the consultant (because the answer never is there by the way).

The “process” is typically dictated by the problem that needs to be solved and the personality of who has the issue that needs to be resolved. I will be honest. I don’t really give a shit about my process. I just care about what trick (or tool that inspires the response necessary to get the conversation moving if you feel better worded that way) I have up my sleeve at the moment that will get the person who has the issue to be able to state their problem in a way that they kind of see the solution themselves. Is that process driven? Heck I don’t know. I doubt I do exactly the same every time. And I sure won’t shove “my process” down someone’s throat if it slows us down from finding a solution.

Timing? In general I think week long consulting gigs are nuts. I think if you get the right people in a room and stimulate the right conversation if a consultant can’t isolate the issue in one day he/she isn’t worth a shit as a facilitator or “consultant”. It isn’t some type of voodoo. There aren’t but so many solution vectors available. And most people who look at their problems when you force them to truly strip things down can see the core issue (heck. They are typically smart folk. Sometimes they just get caught up in the fog of politics and random important unimportant things they have to think about.

One day.

One room.

The right people.

You should get close to the core issue and solutions.

Consultants also drive me a little nuts. Especially how they get paid.

Here is the deal in my eyes.

Initially pay me for my time and the effort I put into it. Cover my expenses. That is it. If the consultant sucks that is all you pay. And that is all the consultant deserves. Even if the consultant in their brilliance believes they have given you brilliance (and you just weren’t brilliant enough to see it) they shouldn’t be rewarded for that. They just weren’t good enough for you to see the brilliance. Don’t pay them anymore then their time and initial effort.

Okay.

You were happy. Thought there was value. You felt it was time well spent. You may have even found a solution (by the way. No matter what you are told you may not walk out with a usable solution.) Or for a variety of reasons you may get close to “the answer” but just cannot implement it or whatever. But. SEEING the solution was worth it. Pay some more.

Last.

You thought it was worthwhile AND you found a usable solution. Pay more. The consultant earned it.

Paying more by getting help implementing.

Well, sometimes a consultant can earn more by helping you implement the solution. I believe the lure of money can make people do some things they just may not want to be involved in.

Sometimes it is good to part company and to walk away then. Implementation can use some outside guidance but I kind of believe you will either get it done as an organization or you won’t. Sure. There are some tricks that can help gain embracing of an idea but bottom line is it takes management fortitude to win the day not organizational alignment tricks (tools).

Sometimes great consultants are like “hit men.”

Their strength is focus and solution for the issue. And I admit I also like to offer up a couple of methods to implement a solution (usually right when the solution is discussed). But I am probably better served walking away and maybe coming back in a year and talking with the same group about “the solution” and how it is going.

In other words continue to maximize the strength of “stepping in, assessing, and offering a solution.”

But, hey, that’s my opinion.

Communicating meaningful information so people can make meaningful choices.

Let’s talk about the definition of ‘Marketing.’

It isn’t sales.

It isn’t some psychological mumbo jumbo of convincing people to do something they don’t want to do.

It IS about attitudes & behavior. That means … at its heart marketing should be about education.

And similar to our school systems I believe marketers have a similar responsibility as teachers … a responsible transfer of information.

Okay.

That doesn’t mean, as a marketer, I have to always facilitate a debate on the positives of social democracy versus socialism in the marketplace with regard to adult diapers but it does mean marketers have a responsibility to speak the truth. Not nuances of the truth (or selective lying … or selective or partial truths).

So, in the end, I tend to believe marketing’s struggle will always reside within individuals’ definition of “meaningful information.”

And we shouldn’t be naïve enough to believe that even if everyone agrees with this definition that everyone will “get it right.”

In some cases people will make true mistakes based on “I think it should be ‘this’ versus you think it should be ‘this’.” <note: because whether we want to admit it or not … people in marketing are … well … people .. and not all people think exactly the same way … sorry about that>

On other occasions, someone will decide to try and communicate something unimportant and try to make it important (shame on you).

The largest error in our ways will be reflected in what I see is the biggest flaw in the marketers’ world.

The fact that most marketers delude themselves into shaping something <product or service … or worse … a ‘brand’> as unique when it is simply well crafted information (and not unique).

Regardless.

I believe marketing is ultimately about truth.

Maybe I am naïve but I believe common sense and honesty always ends up winning. False “uniqueness” is uncovered as emperors’ clothes in the end … so why not stake truth out, meaningful information, for all to see and let people make meaningful choices?

You are gonna have to do it anyway <because consumers are pretty smart people>.

In other words, educate people and they will judge what you say, your product,your company, your brand with an unjaded eye.

The potential prize? Maybe, just maybe, they will actually choose what you are offering for all the right reasons.

So.

All that said. Here is a surprising definition (that is if you have done the math and uncovered the formula) … the definition of Marketing is … well … truth.