===

Mother, mother

There’s too many of you crying

Brother, brother, brother

There’s far too many of you dying

You know we’ve got to find a way

To bring some lovin’ here today

Father, father

We don’t need to escalate

You see, war is not the answer

For only love can conquer hate

You know we’ve got to find a way

To bring some lovin’ here today

<What’s Going On>

Marvin Gaye

==

“To be neutral, to be passive in a situation, is to collaborate with whatever is going on.”

Howard Zinn

===

This is about guns and shooting and words. First. Guns. Suicides, of which there are far far too many, reside in the purview of handguns. Inner city crime, mostly minority on minority, of which there is far far too many, reside in the purview of handguns. What lies in the purview of young white males is mass shootings with an AR-15. Reminder. And AR-15 is a civilian version of a military M-16. And we had another young white male, with an AR-15, shoot into a crowd. What makes this one a bit different is that instead of shooting white school children (Sandy Hook), or Hispanic school children (Uvalde), or black people (Charleston and Buffalo), or a country music crowd (Las Vegas), this young white male decided to open up on a Trump rally. Its too early to know his intent, or motivations, whether it was a specific assassination attempt or just ‘kill-for-attention,’ suffice it to say there was a young white male, with an AR-15, a crowd of people, and he shot. Regardless of his actually intent, whatever it may have been, the Republican party find itself in a quandary. The MAGA world was attacked through the same 2^nd amendment rights they espouse. And not just attacked, but their leader’s life threatened. But that’s not the tricky part for them, it’s that it wasn’t the ‘radical left,’ but rather just a disturbed young male (registered as a Republican). There is nothing nefarious here, at least not politically, just another young white male with an AR-15.

That said. Let’s get to rhetoric.

First of all. I am excited to spend the next few days being lectured about the dangers of inflammatory political speech by people who’ve spent the last few years cheerleading civil war (sarcasm). Second. I have written about how political rhetoric needs to be dialed back. Oh. I did that before 2016 and in 2016. Third. There is no equivalence between right rhetoric and left rhetoric. At its worst the left suggests MAGA is an existential threat to the country (and democracy) and their call to action is “vote.” At its worst the right, well, encourages violence as a call-to-action option. Even worse, their rhetoric veers into “they are the enemy” mental models therefore there is no such thing as ‘unity’ to a MAGA member; just victory and supplication (or elimination). Fourth. Conservative media, for quite some time, has been quasi-apocalyptic in their calls to fight by any means necessary the evils of liberalism (or socialists and communists as they suggest). To be clear. Apocalyptic phrasing around democracy is different than apocalyptic phrasing around America. Anyway. The rhetoric from the Right has only gotten hotter. Fifth. The most violent rhetoric of the past 8+ years is from Donald Trump. Trump has repeatedly promised a civil war, called democrats unamerican, called them treasonous (coded message for ‘should be shot’), routinely calls for bloodbaths, “stand back and stand by” to white nationalists and suggests January 6 capitol attackers are heroes. These are incontrovertible facts.

Words are weapons and words, used well, contrast choices. I end this section with that because in the MAGA alternative universe world, where they turn up down, words should not be completely eliminated, just used more wisely.

“Almost any criticism of Trump is already being spun by MAGA as an incitement to assassinate him. This is an Orwellian attempt to silence what remains of the effort to stop him from regaining power.”

Edward Luce/Financial Times

Anyway. Almost all political rhetoric these days suggests an “us versus them.” That is horrible.

It creates an either/or mentality where complex issues gets dumbed down to inaccurate simplicity.

It creates an either/or mentality which encourages us to be, and express, the worst version of ourselves. This clearly does not, and will not, help us address the complex reality we face.

Add on the layer of the internet and social media and our worst version gets amplified.

Add on the layer that the amplified voice, and voices, the reach into the minds of the few mental-health-in-need individuals in a greater culture in which tools of violence (guns) are far too readily available.

I point out the layers because whatever we do each layer needs some solutions to create obstacles to an alignment of disparate variables which enable the unacceptable occurrences we see.

Americans believe they are extremely divided along lines of identity: 77 percent said the country is divided over religion. Eighty-three percent said it’s divided over race and ethnicity. And fully 91 percent of respondents said the United States is divided by politics.

We need to accept that divisiveness in rhetoric affects attitudes and ultimately behaviors.

We need to accept that mental health reform, societally discussed … culturally discussed … and professionally discussed, needs to be not only discussed but dealt with.

And, yes, we need to accept that gun ownership, or the prevalence of everyday people having guns, often makes police work more challenging and increases the likelihood of errors affecting people’s lives in that there are split second decisions made on <a> whether a person they are facing has a gun and <b> will they use it or not.

All of these things lead to a difficult complex situation in which divisiveness and extreme points of views/rhetoric tend to not be very productive if not even detrimental to the overall situation.

Which leads back to rhetoric.

And while we can talk about guns, or the economy <because economic inequality and lack of real opportunities creates a foundation for unhappiness if not anger> or any other issue we want … we need to begin with the words.

===

“We don’t get harmony when everybody sings the same note.

Only notes that are different can harmonize. The same is true with people.”

Steve Goodier

======

Whether we like it or not words beget actions. Any good speaker, any good leader, any effective protestor knows this is fact. Words have inspired people to act for generations. Therefore, we all must acknowledge the consequences associated with what we say. Free speech and freedom of thought is at the core of who and what America is, however, hate of what is said and what is thought is the counterproductive ugly side of that freedom.

I say this because you cannot be either for police or against police – they are an integral part of the fabric making up the structure of America. We are all pro police.

I say this because you cannot be either for or against immigration – unless you are a Native American they are an integral part of the fabric making up the structure of who and what America is (and a healthy economy). We are all pro-immigration.

I say this because you cannot be for or against America – America is a complex weave of a structure of how we think, what we believe, self-identities and attitudes. Disagreements on tactics aside, in the end we are all pro-potential, pro-progress, and pro-America.

That said. No matter one’s beliefs, the rhetoric of extremism seems to create an absurd version of “us versus them” where, well, no one wins – we are all the victims. What I mean is that when extremism is taken in totality, where each side states that if you don’t believe what I believe you are not only wrong but “bad”, uhm, the only conclusion would clearly place everyone, when taking in all views, clearly as wrong & bad, i.e., no one can be right because everyone at some point ends up in a “wrong bucket.”

Therefore, what’s going on is a divisiveness which suggests everyone is in the wrong. And if that is true … well … in a land of nothingness nothing will inevitably win. Anyway. Here are the most powerful words I can think of to address this discussion.

It’s got to stop.

We need some fundamental changes – in attitudes and in behaviors and in words.

Look. American violence is clearly out of hand. American inequality is clearly out of hand. American divisive rhetoric is clearly out of hand. Too many simplistic inaccurate depictions of what’s going on make it incredibly difficult to find the common ground where common sense ideas can prevail.

And this is where I look to leaders and what’s going on.

Ah. The Leaders. Let’s call them our ‘governing officials” <politicians>. And let’s call them disappointing. I discuss this hesitating. Hesitating because I truly believe in the power of people and the power of an individual to say ‘it stops here & now’ and that in doing so attitudes, like dominoes, begin to fall in line. But in a country in which politicians will not seek common ground, but instead shout out the top of their lungs “all things divisive,” how can we the people be united? If leaders <on both sides> refuse to compromise … it is us, we, everyday schmucks who pay the price.

We are the victims of their behavior – all of us – not just the ones who die or are physically directly affected.

We are all victims when the system fails.

We are all victims when our leaders fail.

We are victims when a small group of like minded people fail.

We are victims when an individual fails.

We are all victims if we fail to do something.

We are all victims when we begin to believe the bigger vision of who and what America is … is … well … failing.

And ultimately.

We are all victims when the rhetoric is divisive

This all gets just a bit worse. Unity, or common sensemaking, has always been dependent upon mingling of peoples and work is where roughly three-quarters of Americans’ interactions with people from another political party happen. Other life activities are significantly more politically divided. Yeah. Less than 50% of people say they encounter political differences among their friends. Only 39% say they see political diversity within their families, and an incredibly low % of people encounter ideological diversity at religious services or community meetings. This is really bad because many of these places have traditionally been where people practiced habits of democracy. So, as institutions weaken, and people self-identify more, democracy gets weaker and people are more easily divided.

So, I will offer the first step.

For you, and me and my leaders. Stop the divisive rhetoric. Words have power beyond the imagination. Stop the divisive words. It must stop to stop what’s going on. Unite America by offering uniting rhetoric. It is amazing what can happen, what will actually ‘go on,’ if everyone actually believes we are united. I tend to believe all of us every day schmucks know that we have problems and that there are issues to be resolved, but I would feel a shitload better if I truly believed we were united in addressing them. And maybe, just maybe, less divisive rhetoric will encourage us to maybe, just maybe, spend a little more time around people who are not just like us, and find out they are not evil, they are not our enemy, they are not vermin, they are people. Just like us. Ponder.

Earlier today I reshared my thoughts on the lack of civility in political rhetoric and how that fosters an environment of violence – either unacted upon violent thoughts or actual violent actions. I even wrote ‘the politics of resentment’. Which leads me to Trump. Violence has always bubbled below the surface in America, but where I lay a large burden of the blame on Trump is for using it as a tool of “America Greatness”, i.e., the violence is done by patriots passionate about their great America. It really was not that long ago that in 2015 and 2016 the Trump cult was being shaped with violence.

It seemed like just another day and another violent Trump rally. The incidents kept piling up.

Chicago protest fights. A Black Lives Matters protester was sucker-punched by a white bystander at a rally in Fayetteville, North Carolina. A young black woman was surrounded and shoved aggressively by a number of individuals at a rally in Louisville, Kentucky. A black protester was tackled, then punched and kicked by a group of men as he curled up on the ground in Birmingham, Alabama. Immigration activists were shoved and stripped of their signs by a crowd in Richmond, Virginia. A Latino protester was knocked down and kicked by a Trump supporter in Miami.

At that time I said this version of America is not the America I know, the America I want nor is it America anywhere near great. While I remain steadfast on the latter two, on the first I was wrong. I now know the Trump America and it is violent.

It makes me angry.

It disturbs me.

Just to remind everyone, one of the most disturbing moments, one which truly made me angry, was angry as I watched a protest in Chicago devolve into what could only look like a riot to the entire world.

Another reminder. A Republican, at that time, said: “Tonight the seeds of division that Donald Trump has been sowing this whole campaign finally bore fruit, and it was ugly.”

I am angry because Mr. Trump knew what he is doing. He was playing with fire. Playing it as close to the fire as he could without getting burned <or burning down the house> because in his own pea like mind he has decided that this warped version of passion will energize change and ‘winning.’

Just as he has shown a complete disdain for a ‘good win’ versus a ‘bad win’ he also shows no signs that he understands the difference between ‘bad passion’ and ‘good passion.’

That is the sign of an incompetent ignorant lazy leader.

I am angry.

I am not angry at America or its people or even most of Trump’s followers; I am angry at a person who wants to be the emperor who has no clothes. He offers only platitudes of ‘deals & wins’ as solutions to any issue he is asked about and, worse, simplistically twists the “us versus them” narrative into “we good people & they bad/evil people” platitudes.

He skates on the slippery superficial surface of emotion and an enhanced feeling of irrelevance <or being marginalized> from a minority of the populace who has now found a voice.

I remain angry even to this day.

And I get even angrier because Trump, to this day, assumes no, none, nada, whatever version of “zero” you want to apply here … responsibility for anything.

It is never his problem. It is never his issue. It is never anything but ‘the bad people’ <media, people who do not agree, Muslims/Islam, Mexicans, immigrants, stupid elite, etc.>. It is never him.

This despite the fact he is the common denominator.

And this also means, to Mr. Tump, he is never responsible for his words.

We are all responsible for the words we say. Everyone.

That said.

It most likely took me far too long to understand this, but while freedom of speech is an equal freedom for all & everyone, the responsibility tied to that freedom is not equal. Responsibility increases upwards. The larger the forum, the more impact as a leader I have, the larger the actual managerial/actionable responsibility the leader has AND the larger the responsibility to the speech portion of my freedom I have.

Trump acts, and has always acted, like he has no more responsibility with regard to what he says than the guy sitting at the end of the bar after a 10 hour day drinking his 5th draft beer with his buddies bitching about the world.

======== Trump supporter ==========

A leader has a responsibility to listen to his/her people but any good leader knows you don’t incite latent negative emotion within an organization … you show you listen, unite and give specifics on how the organization will progress from that point on.

Lastly.

I am angry because I have run across these faux business leaders in business and they are the worst of the worst. They are hollow of anything. And blanket their hollowness with superficiality or faux emotion. And, most importantly, they make nothing great.

Trump is particularly skilled at manipulating his version of the public to his own ends. And, in that, he doesn’t even recognize his divisiveness <which is frightening for someone who was leader of the free world>. I believe he doesn’t recognize the divisiveness because he lives in an alternative universe in which everyone else is wrong and the problem and protestors never have a valid reason and anyone not in ‘his crowd’ must be unpatriotic.

Mr. Trump, assuming he actually desired to be a president, never understood all citizens are his crowd. You either decide to try and unite by listening and convincing them of your path to ‘greatness’ or I imagine you just let them rot somewhere as you, and your followers, shun them. And, well, that’s what he did. And by shunning them, while fostering a violent attitude, he gave implicit permission to be violent as long as it was targeted to those he shunned.

I cannot remember in my 60something lifetime anything like this.

And, yeah, I am still angry.

And, if I am honest, a little nervous certainly unsettled and, well, maybe a little scared.

This feeling did not come easily.

And I know exactly when it happened. It was a March morning in 2016 when I discussed my anger at Trump’s lack of assuming responsibility after the Chicago rally incident and it happened as I said “I have never seen this before in my lifetime.”

Because I do know where I have seen it before. This is the divisiveness of dictators and autocrats. I hesitated to use examples from the past, but the names came very very close to crossing my lips. It was an uncomfortable feeling to be that close to comparing Trump to some of the worst of the worst leaders from past history. And what got me that close to uttering the examples is that instead of making a call for discussion and debate he insists on calling for silence and authoritarianism <absurdly under the guise of ‘freedom of speech’>. To be clear, I no longer hesitate to draw these comparisons. To be clear, as he harkens back to the ‘good ole days’ he even seems to encourages violence <under the guise of “we are so weak and need to be strong again”>.

This is bully logic.

Trump disavows violence and yet encourages it. He encourages a consistent ‘strong message’ <however you, the followers, would like to deliver that message to ‘them’> of silencing dissent, silencing debate, silencing real solutions, silencing critics and silencing competitors. And he fills their silent space with bombastic platitudes of deals & wins and divisive rhetoric.

While he’s narcissistic, self-absorbed, power hungry/crazy and driven by either greed or ‘winning by any measure” I almost think we are seeing a public case study example of the Dunning–Kruger effect.

This is a cognitive bias in which a relatively unskilled person suffers illusory superiority. This translates into mistakenly assessing their ability and believing their skills, and themselves, to be significantly better than what it actually is. Dunning and Kruger attributed this bias to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their own ineptitude and evaluate their own ability accurately. When Trump looks in the mirror he sees only something superior to everyone else … maybe even superior to America itself.

Anyway.

I am not a huge follower of politics but it seems to me that consistent violence at the scale of 2016 was rare in American politics, but now it has almost become the norm.

And I am still angry at Mr. Trump.

Angry at his overall lack or personal responsibility. Angry at his disdain for the power of words. Angry at his lack of understanding of freedom of speech as it pertains to leadership. Angry at his lack of desire to try and convert dissenters, but rather silence or eject/reject dissenters.

Angry at his hollowness <because I want a leader who is full of a robust vision beyond deals & wins>.

And, mostly, I am angry at what he has done to America.

He never had any interest in making America great, he simply encouraged us to hate.

And hate is the foundation for violence. Ponder because this is important.

===============

“They made you into a weapon and told you to find peace”

unfinished poems

==================

“Because you believed I was capable of behaving decently, I did.”

Paulo Coelho

==========================

“America is the country of the Future. It is a country of beginnings, or projects, of vast designs an expectations.”

Ralph Waldo Emerson 1844

==========

So, without intending to, this has become a partner piece to something I wrote back in November 2016 “In this time, at this place, I will be defined.” At that point I felt like we had reached a defining moment. By that I mean a moment in time where people will be demanded to choose what they stand for and make a stand.

I still believe that even in 2020. In fact, I believe we, the people, are still feeling our way through that process in fits & starts even as if it feels like the world around us, the world we knew, is burning.

Part of that process has been driven by Trump and his unflinching grip on lack of decency, divisive rhetoric and leadership style. It has only encouraged fragments to remain fragments, niche opinions to become stronger niche like thinking and, yet, as this dividing increases the majority of people will feel a slightly desperate sense of yearning for a greater need of “one out of many.” This arises out of a natural desire for community and a grander view of “we” rather than just “I” as well as most people will feel an inherent need to regain some solid, well directed <not just hopeful> trust in something & in someone who offers a glimpse of the future and not just victimization within the present.

I will not argue today that this greater need is pervasive yet because I believe many are still in denial — denying some basic things we see with our own eyes because they desire to focus on past driven resentments rather than future driven opportunities. To be fair. Many of these people have gotten used to a system that hasn’t done shit for them, could care less about what they are interested in and think the character of the ‘establishment’ is no better, or worse, than some tweetstorming asshat in the oval office.

What I will argue today is that while Trump has done nothing to create some sense of unity we, as a country, need someone who will because at some point someone has to clearly define the future of the country. Basically, we need someone to rise like a phoenix from the burning ashes of a fragmented country to breathe a new  view of the future into our lives.

This seems like a massive challenge when, in truth, the battle resides in nuance and effective communication.

===========

“Nothing. Nothing. We’re used to living in poverty, we’re used to it. It ain’t never going to change. How many times we got to tell you that? But you don’t listen.”

===========

Almost everyone wants change but almost everyone, regardless of their position, thinks it will never change.

And, therein lies the rub. Trust in the institution. Believing in the institution. For we, the people, believe we (as individuals) can do anything and, yet, we do not believe the government or the grander institution is capable of leading the change.

I say this because if the people are enormously skeptical, even cynical, of anything government promises & actually does it is significantly more difficult for the government to work properly if it doesn’t have the people on its side.

This cynicism comes to life in something I wrote in 2013

—

America is better when ideas are held up for debate, but it is worse when some let their blind partisanship drag the country down in an “I may lose, but by God they won’t win” death spiral.

The world will improve not because of more government or less government … in fact the government & taxes & stimulus is irrelevant … it will be because people’s attitudes will change.

They will just believe it should be better and will set out to make it better … regardless of the system they are asked to operate within.

==========================

No matter what we may say about personal responsibility, Leaders do matter.

They not only breathe oxygen into hope when we feel suffocated but they also have an ability to remind everyone that things are attainable – they can get us to believe when skepticism suggests we shouldn’t believe. A good leader can make people’s attitudes change.

It’s kind of like offering attainable hope. But even this kind of pragmatic hope needs some help. It has to be visionary and big & expansive and yet needs some grounding in ‘believing’. And, yes, I believe one person, a leader/president/prime minister/whatever, can do this.

It is not about telling us we are great or convincing us we are great, but rather that greatness resides WITHIN us.

Ponder this quote:

===

“The true greatness of a nation is not measured by the vastness of its territory, or by the multitude of its people, or by the profusion of its exports and imports; but by the extent to which it has contributed to the life and thought and progress of the world. A man’s greatness is not estimated by the size of his body or of his purse; not by his family connections or social position, however high these may be. He may bulk large in public estimation today, but tomorrow he will be forgotten like a dream, and his very servants may secure a higher position and a name lasting possibly a little longer.

A man’s greatness is estimated by his influence, not over the votes and empty cheers of a changing and passing crowd, but by his abiding, inspiring influence in their bidden thoughts, upon their ways of thinking, and consequently of acting. That is why the Wycliffes, Shakespeares, Miltons, Newtons, Wesleys, and Gladstones of English history live, and will live, in everlasting memory, while lesser men are remembered only through them, and the crowd of demagogues, pretenders, and self-seekers are named, if ever named, only to “point a moral, or adorn a tale.”

So with nations.

A great nation is not one which, like Russia, has an enormous territory ; or, like China, has an enormous population. It is the nation which gives mankind new modes of thought, new ideals of life, new hopes, new aspirations; which lifts the world out of the rut, and sets it going on a cleaner and brighter road.”

E. Blaze, November 26, 1926

Sri Lankan educationist founder of Kingswood College

======

“New modes of thought, new ideals of life, new hopes, new aspirations; which lifts the world out of the rut, and sets it going on a cleaner and brighter road” is greatness and all of that resides within us, as a collective group acting coherently, and we seek a ‘phoenix’ to show it to us.

Now. I am not suggesting we need a “change agent” as some leader because I believe everyone wants change. What I am suggesting is we need a “believe agent” because people need to believe – that change can occur, that hope does exist and a better future is within our grasp.

This person needs to capture the space in between practical and emotional:

the “hard sell”: The idea that what people want – what they need, and more importantly, what will drive them to act – is the facts, stated with clarity and without cleverness. Give people facts and they will give you their actions.

the “emotional sell”: That which makes the requested actions memorable beyond the merely mechanical. People are simultaneously logical & illogical, predictable & unpredictable, and 100% aspirational. Tell people to land on the moon and they will figure it out. Tell people some greatness is possible and they will do great things.

Believe agents cannot choose one path or another they must gather it all up and show it to us. I do believe this leader, or a group of these leaders to choose from, exist. We may not recognize them as true leaders now, but I envision our next generation of great leaders will arise from all of this turmoil. I have called this new leadership group “the sifters”. They will have the ability to sift through the loud voices, the silent voices and their peer’s voices, decide what is right, decide what is right for everyone’s future, and do it <whether it is ‘popular’ or not>. Basically, we need a ‘phoenix’ who will explain common sense, even if it is some unpopular common sense, tell people the truth, and make people believe the future we want is attainable. They will take a stand and ask us to stand ourselves.

I am suggesting a ‘believe agent’ builds attainable Hope leading with common sense tethered to Hope guiding us toward the horizon of hope and prosperity.

Am I asking too much of just one person? Maybe. Possibly. But is it fair to ask for someone to galvanize all the fragments into a whole? Yes. One person is a blacksmith and one person can forge a nation into one. That I believe.

This does not absolve us of personal responsibility, but sometimes someone needs to light the light in the ‘lighthouse’ optimism to guide us toward who and what we want to be as a group of people <a nation as it were>.

That said. Hope comes in all shapes and sizes and we need leaders who recognize the shape of Hope has changed. In particular there is a practicality that Hope needs today that it didn’t need in the past. Defining moments usually require defining people in order to bridge the moment. Where will we find this phoenix? Am I asking too much of one person? Is it too late? Yes. I offer scary questions but with all that I will offer an answer. Defining moments create defining people. A phoenix will arise because the moment itself will define them. But. Where will we find the phoenix?

===============

“You cannot live without establishing an equilibrium between the inner and outer.”

—–

Paul Auster

=========

“I used to think of you that way, you know. Like the sun. My own personal sun. You balanced out the clouds nicely for me.”

He sighed.

“The clouds I can handle. But I can’t fight with an eclipse.”

–

Jacob

=======

“The idea that talent is directly proportional to your trophy cabinet is one I oppose.”

—-

Alex Turner

==================

Ok. I have been extremely consistent over the years with regard to my belief that I think balance is the key to almost any successful endeavor – in life & in business.

Suffice it to say I am a big balance person. And, yet, the other day during a business discussion it occurred to me that I may not be using the right word or even have the concept correct.

I may actually be a ‘proportional’ advocate.

Let me explain. Business, more often than not, is about assessing the correct proportional value of a topic, fact or idea and assigning the correct proportional response to that value.

Sure. That may inevitably arrive at something we could call “a balanced response”, but to get to the so-called balance we need to think about proportions.

I imagine, in my head, this means we need to stop viewing things as a zero sum balance, but rather as proportional to the situation in hand.

Now. I did some research and back in 1975 a guy named Piaget described the essential characteristic of proportional reasoning as it must involve a “relationship between two relationships.” I am not really sure what that means, but I am guessing it means that proportional assumes some dimensional aspects while balance is simply a relationship between two more concrete/discrete things.

He also suggested that proportional involves something called “additive reasoning” which, to me, explained my misrepresentation of balance.

Balance suggests an either/or trade off — something like teetering on a balance beam.

Proportional suggests a more spatial trade off or, maybe, ratio based trade off. What I mean by that is I can add one thing as part of a compromise and its true value is a zillion and give up one thing as part of the same compromise and its true value is 1/10^th of a zillion (despite the fact their actual costs may be different).

I balanced my response, but gained a proportional advantage.

There is even something called ‘the constant of proportionality’, but that becomes too complicated for my pea like brain so I will let you google it and see if you can explain it.

I imagine my real point is that most of us, most likely, are proportional thinkers and not balance thinkers <although we say we are balanced>.

More often than not we invariably assess things through assimilation and the synthesis of multiple things <numbers, ratios, tangible, intangible, and … yes … even missing information & components>. Our decisions are a messy mix of analyzing a series of unequal and equal things shaping them into the proper proportions to make a, well, proportional response. This can all make sense but it doesn’t really make it any easier for us. its not easier because balance is easier to assess and judge, balance is almost always associated with ‘fair’ while proportional often looks like something won & something lost and balance gets confused with linear zero sum game decision making.

All that said. Here was the bigger epiphany to me on why we should explore the more difficult pat of proportional thinking.

While balanced may seem like a simple improper term the truth is the more one focuses on balance the higher the likelihood I would actually end up doing the wrong things.

Huh? If you focus on balance you will inevitably try and force equality in all things. That may sound good, but it ain’t really reality. Simplistically it means you are focused on the wrong outcome & objective.

Instead, if you focus on the best proportional response to every situation, you may not end up with a one-to-one balanced relationship on any one comparison you review <which creates issues in its own right>, but you will end up with a balanced relationship on any given series of comparisons.

That last paragraph may actually showcase why most people focus on balance. In a simplistic measurement business world we are almost always demanded to show one-to-one or linear explanations.

Balance does that.

Proportion does not.

This means to embrace being proportional means you will have to accept the burden of explaining the more difficult to explain, to showcase asymmetrical as actually being simple and dimensional can actually reflect symmetry. Nothing in what I just shared in that last paragraph is easy. Particularly in today’s business world.

============

“Divide the target in proportion to the available resources”
―

Sunday Adelaja

==========

All I really know is that, whether I like it or not, I am actually a proportion person and not a balance person. It only took me over 25 years in business to figure that out <no one has ever suggested I am a quick learner>.

Think about it. You may actually be a proportional person too. More importantly, maybe you should be.

============

“Whenever you take an action, decide by both your brain and heart in equal proportions. Balance them as far as possible.”
―

Bikash Bhandari

============

=============

“Sometimes, the bravest thing you can do is to never look back.”

—

Anonymous

=============

Forward progress, in the mind, is almost a mandatory for success.

Forward progress, in practice, is great theoretically.

Forward progress, in theory, is big business.

For the latter, well, just see the gobs of information and quotes online with regard to “if you aren’t moving forward you are standing still” … “don’t look back or you’ll miss what is in front of you” … “don’t look back you are not going that way” or some fortune cookie wisdom like that <as if no one knows that movement, and progress, is good>. I call this the ‘forward progress theory’ business <I have noted elsewhere Life, like chess, is about facing the entire board and obstacles & opportunities which lie all around you, not just in front of you, & you can move in a variety of directions with progress in mind>.

That said.

With regard to progress, the bravest thing you can do is to not look back. Why do I say ‘brave’? We make it really hard to not look back. Really hard. Day in and day out everything around you pounds on you for ‘what did you learn’ and how are you applying it and ‘if you don’t know learnings from the past how can you be sure that is the right thing to do?” <crap like that>.

Okay. Semi useful thinking crap like that. But what it really means is that anyone truly desiring to move forward, intent on progress, keeps getting dragged back time and again to the past. What, or who, is the main culprit of this almost unhealthy relationship with the past?

“Those who do not learn from the past are doomed to make the same mistakes.”

Christalmighty. “Doomed.”

No wonder people are afraid of some risk or hesitate to move forward keep looking backwards. Doom is never a particularly desirable objective if you care about your career <or anything for that matter>.

====

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

(George Santayana)

“I’ve got news for Mr. Santayana: we’re doomed to repeat the past no matter what.

That’s what it is to be alive.”

Kurt Vonnegut

====

The ‘doomed’ aspect <which older business people toss around like confetti in meetings> means we are almost demanded to not only invest energy in the past but, in some cases, encouraged to hold on to past learning with ragged claws. That said … I will go back to the bravery aspect because I could argue the truest bravery, in this sense, resides in two places:

• Not looking back once you have decided to move forward.
• Not looking back when you purposefully stand still.

Yeah.

First. Move. There are actually times to just go. Go and do. I do not mean ‘go’ as solely leaning on instincts <I call this ‘decision faking by intuition‘>, because research tends to show instincts are less important than experience, but lean on your experience to guide you through the context of your progress. The truth is that the past cannot show you all the shit you need to know as you move forward. It only shows aspects of shit you should be aware of. And, worse, the past has  nasty habit of not encouraging you to reflect on the context of all the aspects just the aspects themselves. Therefore history is truly only important in parts and not the whole.

This means you have to grab the scraps of what you need from the past and create a new whole in moving forward. That is where bravery steps up to the plate. More often than not you are creating a new whole … a slightly different version of what was. Yeah. That is different than the past <it s actually something new>. Yeah. Everyone is actually a creator, a discoverer albeit we don’t like to think about that. While this point is a generalization … if you know your shit … once you have decided to go … to move forward … don’t look back. Bravely face the new world ahead.

Yeah.

Second. Stand still. There are actually times to stop. Stand still. Even amidst activity. Even amidst a crowd which seems like it is moving forward <albeit sometimes all you see is the movement>.

Stillness, strategic stillness, is possibly one of the scariest things anyone can ever do. When everyone and everything is moving you feel like you are ding something wrong in standing still. And, yet, by purposefully doing so you may be adding to the progress rather than taking away from it.

Here is what I know about purposefully standing still.

You have to accept the fact you are offering the type of energy that no matter where you are and no matter that you are still & not moving you are actually adding value to the space and time and progress to that which is around you. I can promise you that this takes a version of bravery.

Anyway.

The entire ‘Forward progress Theory’ is difficult. Difficult in the mind <attitudes> and even in practice <behavior>. I could argue that it is so difficult because our natural instinct is to try and use the past to define what the future will look like. That is slightly crazy when you think about it. While the arc of time suggests the future will most likely replicate the past, well, that is the arc and not the details. It’s kind of like discussing strategy versus tactics. The strategy may remain the same or similar, but the tactics will vary in the context of time & situation.

Progress does take some bravery, some courage. Mostly because the future will always contain something you have never seen before or faced before. In other words … it will not be the same as it was.

I don’t think I am particularly brave but I certainly don’t look back once I decide to go … and I have no qualms with standing still amidst movement. I tend to believe it is not bravery but rather experience.

Ah. Experience. Maybe you need to be brave to gain useful experience?

Ok.

That’s another post for another day ……..

===================

“Sometimes people let the same problem make them miserable for years when they could just say, ‘So what’.

That’s one of my favorite things to say. So what.”

Andy Warhol

=====================

============

“The talk you hear about adapting to change is not only stupid, it’s dangerous.

The only way you can manage change is to create it.”

—–

Peter Drucker

================

“Some infinities are bigger than other infinities. I cannot tell you how thankful I am for our little infinity. I wouldn’t trade it for the world. You gave me a forever within the numbered days, and I’m grateful.”

———–
John Green

==================

Ok. This is about Possibilities and infiniteness. A long time ago I wrote ‘multiple sized infinities’ where I attempt to debunk the “your possibilities are infinite” snake oil life coaching advice. But here I focus on the finiteness of infinite in business.

I will do so in 2 ways:

decision making mode. I’m not sure how helpful it is to encourage people who need to make A decision that the possibilities are limitless.

maximizing individual’s productivity. I’m not sure how helpful it is to encouraging a person who has a job to do, and desires to do it as well as they can, that their possibilities are infinite.

Decision making.

Oddly I will begin speaking about possibilities by talking about shaking the etch a sketch. I do that because any discussion about possibilities begins, and ends, with: “whatever got you to where you are today is not enough to keep you there.” This is where the etch a sketch comes in because that quote is right AND wrong.

Right in that you have to ditch maybe 80% of the thinking & ideas because they were building ideas and now you have to leverage velocity off of what you have. You need to shake the etch a sketch & redraw systems, process & ideas.

Wrong in that most likely your business is constructed around 4 cornerstones of principles. Or maybe it has some strong cultural boundaries.Both of those represent the good stuff that makes your business WHO it is not what it does. That’s the etch a sketch itself. The construct which holds what gets shaken. Without it the sand flies all over the place and you have … well … shit & you need to start all over (that’s bad).

This makes possibilities finite simply by the valuable boundaries of what makes a business a business. And before someone tosses out “outside the box” bullshit, these boundaries can be pushed out but stepping across means breaking principles which make your company. in other words. If this business finiteness doesn’t meet your needs don’t step out of the box, go to another company.  

Individual productivity.

Let me talk comfort zones here. Far too often infinite possibilities encourages people to look for shit outside their comfort zone or outside some box. As I pointed out in my comfort zone piece, that’s wrong. Individual productivity, individual meaning & individual purpose is generated by pushing OUT the boundaries of what you are currently capable of. This distinction is important because meaning shouldn’t be a onetime thing it should simply be an extension of who you are and what you do. Keep it within your zone just push the boundaries out.

Anyway. Infinite gives Possibilities a bad rap. What do I mean? Far <far> too often we talk about possibilities as “the possibilities are infinite.” We make them sound like they all reside somewhere ‘outside the box.’ From an organizational leadership standpoint this sounds quite inefficient. But the truth about possibilities are infinite is that it is bullshit. In fact. In all this bullshit we are screwing what is actually a good concept, or the possibilities truth. The future is NOT filled by infinite possibilities.  Now. We may have more possibilities than we think we do, but they are certainly not infinite.

In fact the possibilities in any given time and situation are quite finite in a variety of ways:

• Time inevitably squeezes your possibilities quite often into an almost suffocating finite space.
• Ability, or capabilities, inevitably squeezes your possibilities quite often into a fairly pragmatic sphere of finite space.
• Context, or the situation itself, squeezes your possibilities quite often into a less than infinite, or maybe better said “a variety of different sized infinities,” choice space.

We do possibilities a huge disservice by suggesting ‘infinite.’ Shit. We do ourselves a huge disservice by suggesting ‘infinite possibilities.’ At any given time you, and the organization, are absolutely surrounded by possibilities. But possibilities do not always lie directly ahead of you or in the direction you face. Possibilities swirl around you in a multi-dimensional fashion.

Therefore, possibilities can reside in any direction.

Therefore, in order to see all possibilities you may not be able to rely solely on peripheral vision, but to turn around and view in a 360degree fashion <and, yes, if you turn around I would note you are then looking forward just in a different direction>.

Therefore, progress can reside in any direction.

But this is not infinite. It just may feel like it is infinite simply because of the complexity associated with context and what your mind can realistically grasp. We would do better if we admitted infinities, in terms of possibility, reside in all directions – not just forward. We would be much better served if we admitted that not all infinities are same sized. I also believe we would be much better served to admit that possibilities are finite to any given individual. Possibilities which be much better served if we suggested the depth & breadth available within the finite space available to us.

The power of purposeful possibilities. Purposeful possibilities means you aren’t chasing possibilities, but rather seeking meaning. Meaning at work is relatively simple. Every job shouldn’t be a valuable job, it should be a valued job. Valued by the one doing it & by others around. If you find you are valued for what you do, you will inherently begin seeking to be better because we know we are contributing. That’s meaning.

Finding the “better” within what is, i.e., a better inside for a better outside.

The better inside is obvious. This is purposeful adaptation and a constant fine tuning of how things are done and products & services offered. But we cannot, and should not, forget that all of the ‘better inside’ feeds a ‘better desire’ outside.

Pragmatically, people desire something better than a good numbers report. Sure. That is the day-to-day ‘meet the needs state’ type stuff going on in their heads, but at some point they lean back in their chairs, either in the office or in the comfort of their home, and they desire … maybe even need … to see something better to validate themselves as human beings beyond simply ‘doing their job well.’ They want to feel they have done something better, offered something better or contributed something better. In my words, they’d like to be in touch with their “muchness.” I say that because it is clearly different than infinite, or the pursuit of, possibilities. It is simply expansion of who & what you are to its greatest size & ability.

In the end. Infinite possibilities are not infinite, they are finite. And I truly believe we would all be better off as we pursue creating a better business world, one in which purpose is embraced and people can find some meaning & value in what they do if we didn’t overwhelm people with infinite and tell everyone “finite is big enough for all the good things we want to happen to happen.”

=================

“The only real valuable thing is intuition.”

–

Albert Einstein

==================

Well.

Einstein is usually smarter than this. He is slightly off the mark here. Uhm. Well. Maybe he did get it right because he also seemed to have said this.

=============

“Intuition does not come to an unprepared mind.”

—–

Einstein

====================

Okay.

Maybe he was smart <note: tongue in cheek statement>. More likely … Einstein simply never said half the crap that people said he said.

Regardless. Management and decision making by instinct or intuition has reached what I would call a ‘crisis level’ in business today. Let me explain.

First.

Knowledge is good.

Second.

But knowing what to do with it? Let’s call that ‘intuition”, well,that is gooder. Let’s say even excellent. Uhm. But that’s a combo meal. Main entrée is knowledge and the side item is intuition. Don’t like that metaphor?

Knowledge is the science and intuition is the art.

That combination is often called ‘decision making.’

Here is the challenge in today’s business world <and possibly Life>. The gap between what our intuition says and what data & facts actually say is growing wider. What I mean by that is computers and data have the ability to uncover correlation between facts that almost defy common sense or, at minimum, simply make us scratch our heads and say ‘what?” <or “really???”> and that discomfort will inevitably lead to a desire to indulge our intuition <as being better than facts>. Pleasse note I do believe we need to lean in on judgement but shouldn’t confuse it with intuition. When we do it leads to what I call ‘Decision faking.’

Here is where I struggle with intuition.

It’s becoming more and more clear to me that facts are less important to many people. Feelings make decisions, then, and only then, are facts brought in as back up. That’s mixed up. Its the wrong priorities for good decision making.

Yet. It is becoming a common business scenario in which intuition-made-decisions create situations where you end up pulling the trigger first and ask the hard questions later. Yes. This is possibly a general critique of American society, not just business.

Regardless. Think about this.

Thinking and feeling and intuition is actually a business formula. Without doing any research or deep thought … I would suggest great decision making is maybe an 80/20 Pareto rule. 80% thinking & knowledge combined with 20% feeling or intuition creates a great decision. Sure. Statistics and facts can lie. But so can intuition and feeling.

In fact. In business studies the data suggests our instincts & intuition <in business> or ‘going with your gut’ suck. We make bad decisions when based on this. Great thinking combines all the potential lies and sifts thru it all for truth.

Yet. When I look at the business world we seem to have forgotten the difference between thinking and feeling, and worse, we seem to believe feeling is more important.

You feel like you are doing the right thing so you do it.

You feel like it is the best idea so you go do it.

You feel like something is okay because someone told you to do it.

You feel like everything is okay in the end if you can show that why you actually did something was because your feelings were genuine.

You feel like acting on your feelings begets forgiveness for actions and bad decisions.

Well. I feel that’s a bunch of bullhockey.

Intuition is a grown skill. It is not really something you are born with. Well. Maybe better said … people can be born with a good intuition muscle, underdeveloped and awaiting to be strengthened, but no one is born with a well-developed intuition muscle. Therefore you must have the desire to focus on strengthening it. The gym will not come to you, you must go to the gym.

I have also found that business decisions guided by impulse and emotion tend to incorporate a high level of politics and political calculation at exactly the same time.

How will it look?

Who will like it?

Will I benefit?

I imagine taking some time and asking the hard questions won’t alleviate the political aspect, but possibly some time tempers the influence politics have on it. At minimum it shifts the dial slightly away from ‘individual benefit ‘ politics intuition to more ‘group benefit’ intuition.

The debate in business is always on which is better:

• to rely on intuition <feeling>, or
• rely on deliberate thinking while making decisions.

The fact is in some cases it’s better to rely on feeling and in some on deliberate thinking and the trick is to know which to choose when. But in either case you are using both simply relying on one more than other at the end.Intuition should open us to thought not define the thought. Or maybe it could be used a deterrent to avoid things.

Regardless. You should always value what your head & gut are telling you. But it’s the combination, knowledge and intuition, which reaps the highest returns.

Here is what I feel <pun intended>.

We need to defend decision making made through knowledge and thinking.

Why?

Because true thinking is innocent. The deck is stacked against it but in its naiveté it believes if it simply does the right thing <be itself> it will win.

Truth believes if it remains good and just goes out and attend meetings, go to schools, sit down at the kitchen table, go to church and not give a shit about politics and political correctness and just live their lives … well … it will all work out. Truth will win.

Well. Not so much. It won’t.

Thinking needs to be protected. It needs to be protected from intuition as the way to do things. Or maybe we just need to protect ourselves in business from ‘decision by feelings is more important’ type attitudes.

This is not as an easy thing to do nor am I saying it flippantly.

We battle common sense <because sometimes it really doesn’t make sense>.

We battle real knowledge and data <because sometimes it doesn’t look like it makes sense>.

We battle ourselves <we don’t really know what we want>.

================

“Ours is a world where people don’t know what they want and are willing to go through hell to get it.”

Don Marquis

==================

Well. We do know what we want. We want our decisions to ‘feel right’ when we make them and sometimes it seems like we are willing to go thru hell to feel that way.

Here is the point about facts and thinking. We have gobs of theories we espouse in business hallways almost ad nausea but the truth is if you have enough facts the correlations are there <if you look and think>.

Even if the correlations don’t seem to make sense, or even meets common sense, the knowledge is there to be plucked from the information available. The difficulty is that, well, two things I imagine

<1> We are constantly bombarded by information therefore we seem to seek refuge in intuition clinging to some ‘gut feeling’ that seem to make the cluttered world of information available clear, and

<2> we like to make hasty decisions under the guise of ‘we cant waste our time overthinking this.’

The trouble is that our gut is infamously consistent in that it is often biased by stereotypes and generalizations and, frankly, experiences <good and bad … or ‘quantity of’ versus ‘lack of’>.

I say that because while some young people may have good natural instincts they will inevitably have great instincts when older if they hone it through experience. The corollary to that is some older more experienced business people will have great instincts and absolutely better instincts than a younger less experienced instinct muscle.

Experience absolutely hones a natural intuition. Heck. Knowledge hones a natural intuition.

Look.

I’m not suggesting you should ignore intuition. Just that real information and real thinking and the rigor that comes along with the ‘real’ versus instinctual ‘feelings’ is first & foremost the key to great decision making.

In other words. If you make intuition your main criteria to making a decision, you are simply decision faking.

=================

“You aren’t advertising to a standing army; you are advertising to a moving parade.”

—

David Ogilvy

===============

“One can resist the invasion of an army but one cannot resist the invasion of ideas.”

—

Victor Hugo

===============

“The pursuit of excellence is less profitable than the pursuit of bigness, but it can be more satisfying.”

–

David Ogilvy

==============

So.

Today I want to take a moment and comment on business responsibility and their choices with regard to what they say, or do not say, in advertising with regard to social issues. I believe business should take stands on social issues <thru advertising or just in general>.

I do so because in today’s heightened sense of politicism and divisive rhetoric a shitload of people are making noise about “advertising should honor the event and not use it to make a political statement” or “I don’t want to know what they think, I just want to by their product” and even some business people “I don’t want to disenfranchise my business from some good existing customers.”

Well. I am most likely in the minority within the marketing community on this issue but … that is nuts to me. It is nuts for a couple of reasons – first captures the idea that business is a fabric of society whether they like it or not &, second, choices offer clarity to people & people love clarity <as well as hate … and that is good>. The first is about accepting some society responsibility and the second is, frankly, business creating wealth thru self interest. I would also note that Peter Drucker also suggested businesses should not avoid social responsibility and that it could represent opportunities.

1. Responsibility <& Fabric of Society>.

If not then … then when?

Uhm.

If not me … then who?

I fully understand there are consequences & repercussions for your actions. But let me take a couple minute to talk about that ‘actions’ part. Far too often this discussion devolves into a simplistic binary choice – an ‘either/or’ choice.

You stand for this therefore you hate that.  In other words you cannot be pro-choice and yet respectful or understanding of pro-life … you cannot desire stronger immigration rules and still be accepting of immigrants … you cannot believe in your religion and still accept that how others worship is good & worthy.

Let’s face it.

Life, in most cases , is not some simplistic binary choice. You can, and should, believe in something and yet still can, and should, be accepting and respectful of others views. To be clear … to be successful in this endeavor we would not only need to embrace respect but also assume that most people, let’s say maybe 99% of people, do the best they can and make the best decisions they can <no matter how flawed those decisions may look in our eyes>.

Which leads me back to business and advertising. I believe advertising, in general, should always seek to highlight the opportunity for us to see the better, or best, version of who and what we are. That is responsibility. And that is where I believe business marketing and advertising should not fear speaking out. And … I would point out … what I am suggesting is not political nor is it divisive but rather it is contributing to a better society. It is not stating what you believe is wrong … but rather that standing up and speaking out for what you believe is right. Companies make statements all the time. Maybe they do more vocally internally but part of any good organization is a sense of what they believe is right, versus wrong, and how they may define integrity & values.

Frankly. We need more companies standing up and vocalizing this publicly.

This is not about saying “you are wrong for believing this” or “we do not agree with you” but rather more about normalizing what is right.

Look.

This is not about free speech or any political motivation, per se, but it is about how business, and work life, is an important part of the societal fabric of who and what we are and how and what we think.

This also means a business has to slide around the infamous ‘political correctness’ obstacle.

In my eyes … if you want to discuss how political correctness has gone awry … it would be in the business world. Political correctness scared businesses from assuming a role they had gladly played in the past. It wasn’t too long ago that business played a significant role in shaping society. As Peter Drucker pointed out, back in the early 1990’s, something he discussed called “no more salvation by society” … a time in which businesses understood that work made up a significant portion of people’s lives and therefore they had some responsibility to investing in the fabric of society. As time and views have shifted toward ‘making a dollar’ and profits … the work place became less and less an extension of society but rather simply ‘a place to work and gain a paycheck’.

What an empty thought that is.

So empty that when meetings occurred to discuss ‘risk in their advertising’, and ‘what should we say’, was discussed … ‘social responsibility’ sat in the corner and had nothing to defend it … and businesses became afraid to make a stand on what they believed was good for society <and simply focused on ‘brand differentiation’ and ‘branding’ … in other words … I am gonna just worry about me and let you worry about you>.

Well.

This is not only sad … but wrong.

It is wrong for 2 reasons:

• Our work lives, like it or not, represent a significant portion of our lives … not just in terms of sheer hours but also in terms of thinking we are exposed to, accepted behavior and general attitudes on what is right & what is wrong. For a business to avoid that ‘fabric of society’ responsibility is shameful. And … yeah … advertising is the most visible expression should they actually accept the responsibility.

• Brand differentiation rarely resides in some obtuse technical or product differentiation but rather in character & personality. Some intrinsic motivator which compels a consumer to find an emotional connection with you & your brand. Making a choice to become part of the fabric of society permits people to allow you o become part of the fabric of their Life.

Ok.

Yeah. That said. I go back to the beginning … yeah … there are absolutely consequences for your actions. But that is what business positioning is really all about. Distinctness and forcing people to think … think about you as a company, think about what you are offering … and thinking about how they feel about you, your message … and themselves.

That is what business positioning and marketing and advertising, at its core, is all about. We far too often dumb it down into some ‘selling shit’ sound bite but … well … that is dumb. Dumb?

2. Choices, “edges” & Clarity <Self Interest>.

I talk with a shitload of business people … not about advertising or marketing per se … but rather about simply being successful in the marketplace.

I focus on distinction and not differentiation.

I focus on worrying about “me” and what I want to say rather than finding some elusive, and most likely nonexistent, ‘white space’ in some industry to shape what I ‘should say.’

I focus on saying the right things and doing it the right way and suggesting that if you tell people the right way to think about things that eventually people will see you as ‘right’ rather than ‘wrong.’

Yes. I know. People will debate with me and, to be fair, this whole discussion wanders along the razor thin line of inclusionary versus exclusionary. If your message is effective, concise and clear, it will absolutely be inclusionary for those who see themselves in what you have to say and offer … and potentially exclusionary to others at exactly the same time. However, when done well, a business’s advertising captures the brand’s distinctness <which is a campfire to those who want to be included> and offers a better version of people <so that people do not dislike you … they imply think ‘they are not for me’>. I would argue that IS the ultimate clarity & distinctness & differentiation.

Look. To do what I am suggesting a business has to set political correctness off to the side, not think about politics at all … and simply think about … well … people. The people who they desire to try their products and services and how they would like to showcase those people as the best version of themselves. Maybe show them the destination mentally or maybe even share the path. It doesn’t matter … it is intended to connect with some better version that resides in everyone of us. And then after thinking about all that … they have to place the burden of responsibility upon their shoulders, open the door and stride out into the world to share it with people.

In business we have a responsibility.

Yes. Even in the advertising and marketing business there is an almost overwhelming responsibility <which far too many people are not willing to accept this burden> beyond simply selling stuff.

——

“All of us who professionally use the mass media are the shapers of society.  We can vulgarize that society. We can brutalize it. Or we can help lift it onto a higher level.”

Bill Bernbach

 ——-

“We are so busy measuring public opinion that we forget we can mold it.  We are so busy listening to statistics we forget we can create them.”

Bill Bernbach

——-

It is a much easier burden to simply focus on profit and dollars — it is a straightforward black & white responsibility. Well. I would suggest to any business person reading this that … well … responsibility is responsibility. All responsibility is only as overwhelming or ‘whelming’ a you make it.

And if you do not accept your responsibility to tell the truth as excitingly and convincingly as you possibly can … lies will win and, worse, society will end up being shaped that way. If you choose to vulgarize the society or brutalize it … or even ignore it <all under the guise of ‘understanding what the consumer wants’> … society will lose.

To be clear.

I do not despair when I look at business in today’s world … or even marketing & advertising behavior <although it often pains me how often business passes on opportunities to be distinct out of what can only be ‘fear’>. But I do get aggravated. Ok. No. I get angry.

I get angry that we are not accepting the responsibility.

I get angry that we are not strong enough to accept the burden.

I get angry that many do not even presume the responsibility is within their purview.

Business, whether you like it or not, shapes society.

What we do matters.

Selling stuff may matter to our bottom line and the existence of our business, but we cannot ignore that a thriving business actually contributes to a greater good — the existence of a healthy society.

I could argue that while selling stuff is important that what really matters is the shaping of attitudes <which ultimately shapes behavior>.

Far too often, by simply focusing on ‘selling stuff’, the byproduct of our ignoring the larger responsibility is that we end up brutalizing society in some form or fashion. Am I suggesting that selling stuff or being profitable isn’t important? Of course not.

All I am suggesting is that how you sell stuff and be profitable matters.

And that you have a responsibility in how you do what you do.

Because how you do things impacts society.

It shapes society. It can vulgarize or brutalize … or invigorate and instill good.

How you do things has a power way beyond simply you or what you do in that moment.

How you do things is a pebble dropping into a pond.

Accepting the responsibility assumes you are neither impotent nor harmless.

——- 

“Advertising is far from impotent or harmless; it is not a mere mirror image. Its power is real, and on the brink of a great increase. Not the power to brainwash overnight, but the power to create subtle and real change.

The power to prevail.” 

Eric Clark, The Want Makers: Inside the World of Advertising, 1988

——

Your responsibility in business is sometimes subtle … but always real. I worry that business people everywhere, but in particular advertising & marketing, have become so focused on getting shit done and ‘attaining the bottom line’ that they have forgotten the responsibility.

I worry that business people worry so much about politics and ‘political correctness’ they have forgotten that when good people remain silent … the only one who wins is bad.

I ask everyone visiting today to think about what the thinking I offered today. This isn’t about causes. This isn’t about social responsibility <or the welfare of people>. This is about understanding that what you do impacts people. This is about whether you, as business people, accept the burden of responsibility to help shape a society which is a reflection of the best versions of who and what we are. That said. I would also ask everyone to ponder the fact silence also says something and, at some point, EVERYONE is going to be judged whether they said something or not <I. personally, would like to help my judgement by saying how I would like to be judged>.

Well.

In my eyes … if I am going to spend money on some advertisement and place my ad on some show where a gazillion people will see it … I am going to use my moment in the spotlight to aim for the  best version of myself that I can. And aim to help people see the best version that they can be.

Will that piss some people off? Sure.

Does that make me wrong to try and meet that objective? No.

Silence is not an option. When you have the podium and he opportunity to speak … you accept the burden of responsibility and try and ‘lift society to a higher level.’

Originally Posted on February 6, 2017

===================

“You are talking crazy-person talk. Put your words in word places please.”

―

Buffy the Vampire Slayer

====================

So.

I have relentlessly outlined Trump’s shortcomings from a business leadership standpoint.

I have relentlessly outlined Trump’s dubious relationship with the truth.

But today I turn to … well … not even his words … but how he talks.

I mean … well … who the hell talks like this?

“You know, I’m, like, a smart person.”

Uh huh.

Yeah.

Right.

I can honestly say that after having sat in thousands of business meetings, hundreds of conference rooms, dozens of boardrooms and currently trade personal emails with a wide range of business executives … the only person I have ever heard talk like this in a corporate business environment was eventually fired, monitored as he packed up his office, and escorted out of the office by security people.

He was a whack job.

And he talked like this.

All of this makes me begin to think Trump may actually … sigh … not telling us the truth when he says, “you know, I’m like a smart person.”

<note: “like” falls into the same speech pattern as the valley girl “whatever”>

The evidence continues to mount just from the shit he says that he is … well … just not smart.

I know dozens of business executives.

I know some incredibly smart people … maybe even some brilliant people.

I know some Ivy League graduates. Heck. I even know a Wharton person <Stanford people tend to be smarter & I have never met a non-smart Yale grad>.

And what I know is that none of these people talk like this.

I am no psychologist but I imagine the people who talk like this, and the ones who talk in first person <Ricky Henderson most likely being the most famous first person speaker — he called San Diego GM Kevin Towers and left the following message: “This is Rickey calling on behalf of Rickey. Rickey wants to play baseball.” > are people who are actually trying to persuade themselves that they are smart, have a good brain and know good words.

I admit when I hear Trump talk, well, I teeter between repeating Rex Tillerson’s reported thought on Trump — “fucking moron” – and simply shaking my head and saying “who the hell talks like this?”

All I know is that it seems more cartoon-like than President-like:

———————-

“I went to an Ivy League college. I was a nice student. I did very well. I’m a very intelligent person.”

‘I’m, like, a really smart person’

“I am also honored to have the greatest temperament that anybody has.”

“I would say basically we talked condolence.”

“I have one of the great memories of all time.”

“Nobody has more respect than I do. Nobody.”

“Well, I think the press makes me more uncivil than I am. You know – people don’t understand – I went to an Ivy League college. I was a nice student. I did very well. I’m a very intelligent person. You know, the fact is, I think, I really believe, I think the press creates a different image of Donald Trump than the real person.”

“… my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, okay, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart

“My generals and my military, they have decision-making ability,”

“The response and recovery effort probably has never been seen for something like this. This is an island, surrounded by water. Big water. Ocean water.”

After arriving in Israel from Saudi Arabia, Trump told his hosts: “We just got back from the Middle East.”

And, of course,

Trump to hurricane victims in Puerto Rico: “Have a good time”

===================

I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer but, c’mon, no reasonable business person with any reasonable experience talks like this.

And we know that.

We do.

For some we knew this is not normal behavior earlier and for others it has been a grudging realization.

That said.

While we know no one should talk like this we have two problems in finally admitting it & dealing with it:

• The Slippery slope of excuses.

I have written several times about the “slippery slope of ‘just this once’.”

Just once becomes … well … okay just one more time … and then … oops … and you are well on your way on the slippery slope.

Suffice it to say a shitload of people are on the slippery slope with regard to making excuses for Trump.

And they know it.

And while those of us not on the slope can stand there and be righteous … I think it would behoove us to recognize that any slippery slope is a sonuvabitch to get off of.

We would be foolish to utter some simplistic tripe like “just do it” … just get off it.

We would be foolish because it is difficult — for everyone <if you have ever been on a slippery slope … despair, small lies, depression, etc. … you understand>.

Give someone a hand.

Help them.

Quit moralizing. Quit being righteous. Quit being holier than thou. Just fucking help them get off the slippery slope.

• Holding him accountable and our own accountability.

Oh … shit. Accountability is a two way street. No matter how heinous Trump may be on occasion if you hold him accountable … you will also be held accountable. What that means is it inevitably becomes a comparison of ‘failings.’

Well.

That sucked to type.

This means failings of character.

This means failings in judgement.

All of your own failings enter into the accountability fray <and I can guarantee he will bring them into the fray>.

If you make him accountable for his, you need to be accountable for yours <and do not be defensive in doing so>.

And this means dealing with a ‘counterpuncher’ who cannot discern the false equivalence between character failings and judgement and simply hammers away in his simplistic grade school rhetoric in a “if this, then that” pushback.

That sounds … well … horrible. But here’s what you have on your side.

Remember … who the hell talks like that?

Yeah. That’s his weak spot. Accountability does not need intellectualism so you can leave the high falutin’ words at home. Accountability of character & judgement is easy to articulate. It is easy because people really do know right from wrong and that how you win matters more than just winning … they just need to be reminded. And when they are reminded … people will hold him accountable.

Look.

No truly experienced normal business person talks like how Trump talks. They would get kicked out of any office in any viable business in America.

Trump has had 71 years, access to some of the finest America has to offer in education and the opportunity to learn more through experiences than most of us could ever dream for.

He has squandered them all.

Other than being able to bully his way through real estate transactions and make gobs of money off of licensing deals <which is simply being a grifter> he is hollow … hollow of even the most basic information a United States high school senior possesses.

If we cannot win against someone who talks like this, who is hollow … well … WTF … we don’t deserve to win.

Me? I would take him on anywhere at any time. He is hollow, I have seen hollow in business, and I know hollow cannot win.

==========

“You aren’t advertising to a standing army; you are advertising to a moving parade.”

—-

David Ogilvy

============

“You cannot use someone else’s fire; you can only use your own.

And in order to do that, you must first be willing to believe you have it.”

==

Audre Lorde

————

“There is always an easy solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong.”

==

H. L. Mencken

———–

Ok.

This is about the Pepsi fake revolution, fake protest , fake celebrity, misguided brand image advertisement  <which I will inevitably call “the Frankenstein social issue” ad>.

While I had been shaking my head over the ad when I saw it I wasn’t going to write anything until there was a really nice article in The Atlantic, “how does an ad like this get approved?”   which does a fairly nice job of walking everyone through some of the backroom pretzel logic steps an advertisement like this goes through to actually end up on air.

But.

After reading the article I felt I needed to paint on a coat of some advertising development wacky reality because it neglected to share some of the more obscure things which most likely happened.

To be clear.

I could write a 10,000 word diatribe on how this Pepsi ad was a misguided use of a celebrity, a misguided  hijacking of a social event, a misguided use of casting and a misguided tone overall for trying to tie image advertising for a brand with a social revolution <tied to a political issue> … but I will not. Suffice it to say that the ad itself is certainly a mashup of bad ideas … a Frankenstein … but even Frankensteins need to be built <they are not just born> and … believe it or not … there will be some specific things that will happen along the development path which can appear as ‘good business protocol’ but in reality is simply bad laboratory technique.

Now.

Before I skewer Pepsi and their in-house creative group let me suggest a shitload more of the larger companies are going to be faced with this possibility <of developing a misguided socially issue driven ad> sooner rather than later.

I have always believed a company, if it has a strong mission centered on some societal moral compass construct, should be sharing it in some form or fashion <it doesn’t have to be in-your-face> in its external marketing & advertising.

I now believe, in the age of Trumpism, it is almost a societal imperative for companies & brands to take a stand publicly. And I say that not suggesting they stop selling shit but rather they sell shit through a societal view lens. I do believe more than ever companies who stand for something should publicly stand up for that something.

And I don’t really care whether it is a liberal or conservative lens … a business should just elegantly articulate their view in the construct of what you sell and who you are. Society is almost demanding the debate & discussion and no one is better to have it publicly, in a civil discourse versus the coarseness found within Trumpology, than businesses.

Saying that … I give Pepsi points for at least making the attempt. I take points away because … well … a brand & company as large as Pepsi with access to so much creative & strategic talent should have made a better attempt.

But you know what?

Even in their bad they did some good … we talked about standing up for shit and how you should, or should not, stand up for shit.

Rather than beat the shit out of Pepsi for this attempt I will hold my fire until we see the next attempt and see if they learned something.

I would suggest everyone try and do that.

Now.

As for how and why ads like this get approved.

The article suggested this:

“How do these ads get approved?

By brand managers who are not doing their cultural homework—relying upon surface-level understandings of the cultural phenomenon they are featuring in their marketing communications and not understanding the deep well of emotions, identity politics, and ideologies that their ads will trigger.”

Jill Avery, a senior lecturer at Harvard Business School

Oh.

If it were only this black & white, I could solve this.

It is much more absurdly complicated in order to actually approve and produce something this so brutally off target.

Suffice it to say that the issue will encompass a spectrum of things … there will be a spectrum of misguided ‘execution strategy’ combined with some absurd “brand imperatives” all wrapped up in a nice snug outfit made up of stubborn edgy creative people, old white executives out of touch with their target audience, brand managers adverse to risk but an unhealthy desire to be cooler than they are and company visionaries who view cultural trends through what is cool rather than what is truly trendworthy.

This is a Frankenstein social issue “brand” ad created by a brand built on … well … no real social issues … but rather it is representative of a vapid brand which has convinced itself <at least some time in the past> it was more like a ‘fashion brand.’

Of course I should take a minute and discuss the research which “must have been done” to create this ad.

First.

If there really was any research done we need to remind ourselves this is a ‘fashion brand’ <or someone has convinced them they should think of themselves as  fashion brand … which is stupid> created on some vapid imagey type attributes therefore their research is mostly based on some vapid feel-good “cool” cultural benchmarks.

Sure.

I could have set them up with some research company who could have measured what needed to be measured but <a> they don’t want that kind of truth and <b> someone smarter than I was yelling “how could we measure new information … we need to see results which can be compared to what we have so we can also see some ‘post’ numbers.”

Well. That yeller was yelling some well-intended truth but misguided in this case.

In larger companies it is always <always> gobs of “pre” information which you pour over and then setting up a ‘post analysis’ against the pre-stuff. This assumes the “pre” is meaningful and on target and that the ‘post’ is really what matters.

Uh oh.

Assume makes an ass out of you and me.

Status quo is a sonuvabitch.

That is mostly research they would have used to inform the development.

To be clear.

I don’t think they did any ‘pre’ research. I think they “saw” a cultural movement within their supposed target audience and decided “I want to connect with them <so someone go do an ad to do that>.”

If any of this past ‘pre’ research was used it was simply to highlight the aspects that supported the idea they wanted to do <I feel comfortable saying that because I have done just that … cherry picking the “pre” information to highlight the reason why an idea is something worth pursuing and even highlighting some of the first components you may want to start building your Frankenstein with … uhm … any advertising person with half a brain has done this>.

Second.

Ok.

Let’s assume they did some research on the ad itself <which is different than research informing the development of the ad>.

Someone probably set up some high falutin’ research methodology tracking watcher response second by second and checked scores against industry norms <or their own imagey crappy stuff they have done in the past> and the final power point was 30 pages long <with maybe 12 pages of backup graphs> and the printed binder they handed out to a select few to bludgeon themselves with at a later date was probably 80 pages <with nice colored tabs>.

Here is the net of all that stuff.

The celebrity drove up ‘breakthrough’, recall and ‘brand interest’ <albeit they hid the numbers that said the celebrity did not build credibility or authenticity>.

And, yeah, I would also bet someone probably dug up a nice score on “unique from competition.”

And I also bet they figured out a way to get a score worth showing <you never show bad numbers unless you can convince everyone that the bad number is actually a good number … yeah … we do that> to suggest the overall message was topical and that their audience related to the importance of “standing up and speaking out.”

And I would also bet that they didn’t have a particularly good, nor bad, likeability score … just something that didn’t deter them from this path.

And, lastly, I would bet they rummaged through any research they had to seal the deal on what I believe is possibly the worst part of the ad <having the celebrity leave being a celebrity and join the ‘common folk’>. They found a number that suggested “this shows that this issue is SO important that everyone, celebrities and fantastic looking poor folk included, shed their exterior Life and gather together to stand up an speak out.”

I added this last thought and call it out because … well … this is about the only thing that could have been said in the final presentation to the old white men, out of touch with their everyday customer, to gain final approval.

And let me say about the test scores I just highlighted … this is where testing fails people. It’s just numbers. And it’s just not real world.

The numbers don’t match the eye/sniff test.

And in a real world <on tv> environment the ad is annoying to anyone who actually wanted to participate in the movement or did participate … and the ad is generally unmemorable <and doesn’t even come close to capturing any aspect of ‘soul’ of Pepsi … assuming they have one>.

In testing it may seem fun and hip and upbeat but on tv it is annoying and bland and soulless.

By the way … I tossed in the word “soul” in that discussion.

I bring it up to make a point to any and all vapid brands out there thinking about actually taking on a social issue & message.

“Cool” doesn’t hack it if you want to be a fabric of society <which is different than a fabric of culture>. Weaving your way into the fabric of society demands you share a little bit of your soul … your heart … so that people can connect.

Yeah.

I know.

That’s not vapid. That’s some solid unforgiving truth telling about yourself.

Sorry.

That’s the price <and Pepsi was not willing to pay it>.

Next.

How does this get approved?

Well. Let me spend a minute on image advertising and creative people.

Vapid fashion brands far too often forget they are selling shit to people. Most times they will just say “that’s the job of promotions” or “that is point of sale efforts and we are supposed to drive people to the point of sale” or “our job is to be cool so that people want us so badly they will drive through … well … neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of night stays these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds.” Uhm. On rare occasions, maybe a new i-phone, you can inspire that kind of ‘urgent desire to buy’ but in most cases it is just a 6-pack of Pepsi.

Creative people are stubborn people in their everyday work life. The non-hacks … the good talented smart creative people, mostly in good ways, stubbornly & aggressively hold on to creative edges <not just to be edgy but rather to insure there is some edge to what is done>. This gets dialed up in image advertising campaigns because for some reason as soon as a creative person hears “image” <or “brand”> they immediately think “vapid” <I don’t have to sell anything, communicate anything specific and the objective is to create an overall sense that what I am saying is good and the brand is some good shit>.

Triple the intensity with regard to everything I just said for creative hacks <or almost all non-agency advertising people> and add in they confuse ‘creative edges’ with ‘edgy’.

If you are attempting to do an image advertisement you are only partially challenged <fucked> with good creative people and absolutely screwed <fucked> with bad creative people.

Lastly.

How does something like this get approved?

The “someone.”

Ok.

With an ad like this, which I assume was polarizing in its final stages, there is always “someone.”

Someone who stands up and says ‘here is why.” Someone to stand up and speak out that bullshit line I just shared with you … “this ad shows that this issue is SO important that everyone, celebrities and fantastic looking poor folk included, shed their exterior Life and gather together to stand up an speak out.”

There is always ‘someone’ in that frickin’ final approval room, usually someone who shouldn’t have that kind of power, who the old white advertising-clueless men will look to in their moment of doubt on whether it is the right thing to do.

In the advertising business you cultivate this ‘someone’ so that they can bring you home <even if you have a bad misguided idea>. Suffice it to say on an ad like this there will be someone at Pepsi right now who is squirming and most likely getting ready to point a finger at some research person for either <a> not giving the right piece of information or <b> not asking the right kind of question.

Anyway.

I feel sorry for companies who truly do want to start doing image advertising and stay within their brand character and navigate the internal politics and … well … it is nothing they have done before.

There are rarely, very rarely, neat & plausible solutions to what a business faces in the here & now on this topic <and if someone tells you there is … they are lying>.

If you are shown a ‘formula for success’ and it looks neat and it seem plausible … it is most likely wrong.

That isn’t to say someone like me, or someone with smarts, experience and more talented than I, couldn’t guide a company down a viable path to success … just that there is no formula.

What I am now going to say is going to sound painfully inefficient.

A business has to create its own way of doing things. It can certainly contain some aspects of things that have been done in the past but those are simply ingredients from which you will build your own formula.

And, to be clear, if you start bolting together different formulas to create a successful business advertising idea … you are simply creating a Frankenstein which the village people are going to end up killing with simple pitchforks & torches <see Pepsi as an example>.

Your business formula for success will have to be yours.

In the end I would say this.

My guess is that Pepsi tried using a formula for something that is most likely really different than things they have tried in the past.

And while the difference between brutal and brilliant is a relatively thin line even for the people who do this for a living … you can teeter even more when attempting to enter into the fabric of a societal issue.

This ad was horrible.

Absolutely horrible.

But please don’t forget … Pepsi tried. They made the attempt.

In a Trumpenstein world in which being silent will only let the monster tear the village apart they spoke out. They stood up.

Misguided? Sure.

The villagers tore them apart.

But maybe, just maybe, the villagers should pick them up, dust them off, and say go try again … because the Trumpenstein is coming … and we can use any voice we can.

======================

“You cannot paint the Mona Lisa by assigning one dab each to a thousand painters.”

William Buckley