Here is the thought: I believe if all single guys had to go through a birthing class the world would be a better place (particularly for women).
This begins my story of how I have a certificate for taking a birthing class (and I am a single, never married with no children guy).
Maribeth and Phil were really good married friends of mine (another story will be the 12 straight blind dates they set me up on). Maribeth was in the advertising business like me. Phil did something else (do we ever really know what our friends do?). Maribeth got pregnant (via Phil but I didn’t ask any details). Phil was doing his job (whatever it was) and had to leave Mondays and come back Fridays. Birthing classes were Wednesdays I believe.
So Phil and Maribeth asked if I could attend birthing class with Maribeth and then I could pass along the guy version of what happened to Phil over the weekend to prepare him for the ultimate ‘gig.’
I guess the sticky wicket was always going to be “the day” and what happened if Phil couldn’t make it. Thank god that crisis was averted.
So … every Wednesday night Maribeth and I went to the hospital to attend this several week birthing class.
Introductions were interesting the first day.
In general everyone was a little confused on who I was and the relationship to the Phil/Maribeth relationship (I am fairly sure a couple of guys thought there was some threesome thing going on which creeped both Maribeth and I out).
But everyone moved along pretty quickly as we got down to the nuts and bolts of what the baby does to a woman’s body.
Whew.
Okay.
What this baby thing does to a woman’s body.
Suffice it to say I would rather Mike Tyson hit me in the stomach than endure the effect a baby would have on my body. And that would be the number one thing I believe every single guy should start with understanding.
Beyond that.
I have to tell you. Maribeth and I had a blast considering the seriousness of the discussion. Maybe it’s because we were both in the marketing business, but we probably analyzed what was said and why it was said that way more than was probably healthy. Phil would often have to bring us back “on point” in our debrief discussions.
During the class there were definitely some awkward moments with regard to the whole coaching and coaxing thing but I sometimes believe the fact she and I laughed so much reminded the rest of the class that having some fun was … well… more fun than worrying.
Shit.
Some of the dads were so uptight I was a little unclear how conception happened in the first place. The class – which I assume is pretty much the same everywhere – kinda works to get the partners in sync with what is happening with the pregnancy and birth. I imagine it is a nice way to eliminate some of the surprises at “the event” as well as gives some nice fallback tricks when you don’t know what else to do. And the class culminates in a video of three actual births (here is the marketing guy in me). The video strategically begins with a “problem birth,” switches to a “difficult but healthy birth” and finally to an “easy healthy birth” (they always want to finish on a high note).
Okay.
Let me be clear about the video. From a bachelor point of view they were all brutal to watch. And I appreciated the mix, but it kind of all made me think being a monk may not be all that bad. Once again. A very good lesson for any single “in your 20’s” guy (it also may be a great recruiting tool for the church).
Anyway.
It was an amazing experience.
Basically I netted out two things (although I learned much much more than this):
– Having a baby as a couple is an amazing thing. It wasn’t even my baby but I found myself pretty astounded by the capacity and sometimes overwhelming care which creeped into the moment. Every guy would be served well to understand that even if they don’t have a kid. It is an amazing thing to experience even peripherally.
– Having a baby fucks up a woman’s body. I saw things and pictures and videos that sobered me up pretty quickly on my relatively casual attitude with regard to sex.
So I still have my little paper certificate.
It probably cost 5 cents on their copier machine but it is kinda valuable to me. I have lost touch with Phil and Maribeth but that experience will always define my friendship with them. I believe the class matured me a little. And I believe most single guys in their 20’s would benefit from the experience.
Recently the courts have become involved in this semi asinine issue of on using “god” in the pledge of allegiance or on American currency (“in god we trust”) rejecting arguments that they violate the constitutional separation of church and state.
I am going to leave the money issue alone because at this rate the dollar can use any help it can get so I don’t think we want to take a chance God would get pissed we don’t trust him anymore.
But … on the pledge of allegiance.
Let me begin by stating I firmly believe we would be better off as a nation if all kids did what I did and started the school day with the pledge of allegiance.
The reference to God wasn’t an issue or thought (but if it truly is an issue I have an answer).
Regardless.
The pledge is a statement that reminds everyone what country they live in, a respect for the American flag and serves as a small (but cornerstone) commitment to the nation as a whole at a young age.
Look.
I am a business guy. I am an alignment guy.
To me the pledge is an alignment tool. That and the national anthem are foundational elements to a country of people with pride in the country they live in.
Anyway.
This ruling was a reversal of the same court’s decision in 2002 that the pledge violated the First Amendment ban on government endorsement of religion (the crap we get out higher courts involved in is stunning).
But finally I heard a federal judge who “got it” with regard to the pledge of allegiance:
“The Pledge of Allegiance serves to unite our vast nation through the proud recitation of some of the ideals upon which our Republic was founded.”
(and this wasn’t Judge Judy)
(wow. I got this one right and I don’t even have a high falutin’ law degree nor one of those cool robes they get to wear)
Anyway.
Everyone should note that schools do not require students to recite the pledge (although I do wish they would).
So.
Here is my solution so that maybe all schools will open the day with it.
The original Pledge of Allegiance was written in August 1892 with the hope that the pledge would be used by citizens in any country. In 1923 “the flag of the United States of America was added to make it specific to the good ole USofA:
“I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”
C’mon dudes (and dudettes).
What is wrong with this?
No reference to God. Never did.
Why not use the pledge of allegiance which was developed with the correct intent (and, for god’s sake, the original was written by a minister of all people and he didn’t include God).
It was only in 1954, in response to the Communist threat of the times, President Eisenhower encouraged Congress to add the words “under God.” (and I like Ike just not this particular decision).
Just my thinking.
I get worried that we, as Americans, lose sight of the bigger issue (America as a nation) while focusing on smaller special interest issues. I also believe we make it harder than it has to be.
We have a pretty good thing going here in what we call the United States of America.
We fought hard to get it. We fought hard to maintain. We have done some great things. We have done some not so great things along the way. But in the end we still remain the United States of America and the pledge of allegiance is a small reminder of that fact.
1. It is better to be first than it is to be better.
2. If you can’t be first in a category, set up a new category you can be first in.
Uh oh. Apple has mastered making these laws un-immutable.
(note: I am concerned that is not a word)
I am not sure people have noticed (because I believe when you break one of these laws they don’t make any sound) but Apple has been quite successful by not being first at anything they have done nor created any new categories.
They have possibly become the absolute best “follower” in the history of business. Apple is regularly voted the most innovative company in the world. But I am not sure that is the award they should be winning. Its inventiveness takes a peculiar form in that it is “renovation” rather than building. They should be voted the best “renovator” company in the world (boy, that sounds like a shitty award to win, huh?).
What do I mean? Rather than developing entirely new product categories Apple is excellent at taking existing ideas, which may not be optimally implemented, and showing the rest of the world how to implement them in a much more appealing way.
It has already done this three times.
In 1984 Apple launched the Macintosh. It was not the first graphical, mouse-driven computer, but it employed these concepts in a useful, pleasant appearance product (they kind of not only understand the usability function, but they also understood that their product – most often seen as a desk accessory – was a fashion statement for the user).
In 2001, came the iPod. It was not the first digital-music player, but it was simple and elegant, and carried digital music into the mainstream (and once again they understood the “fashion” aspect of the product).
In 2007 Apple launched the iPhone. It was not the first smart-phone, but Apple succeeded where other handset makers had failed, making mobile internet access and software downloads a mass-market phenomenon (and fashionable again).
Suffice it to say … while they renovated existing ideas they also renovated the entire categories because as competitors rushed to respond to Apple’s approach, the computer, music and telecom industries were transformed.
In 2010?
Here comes their fourth attempt at renovation. The iPad — a thin, tablet-shaped device with a ten-inch touch-screen. Hey. Who knows if it will be successful. Apple has certainly had their share of failures but even in their failures they have been spectacular.
But this isn’t a post on whether they are good at these things.
This is about Apple breaking Immutable Laws and being good at something else – Renovation.
So.
In the end I believe I like, really like (although I don’t own an i-pod and I hate Macs), Apple because they are a renovator and not a builder (sort of like me but they are bigger and better than I am). As a great ‘Renovator,’ Apple has this innate ability to identify the essence of an existing or emerging product category, identify the parts (or pieces…whatever) and then put usability at the core of these pieces, making them famous with a really cool façade feature. Somebody called it “re-hashing half baked concepts” but I call it Renovation.
Apple is the ultimate Renovator (not innovator nor “1st to market”).
So.
With all that said…I think that stupid sounding award I suggested earlier is a valuable award. And nothing to be embarrassed by. Being the best at something is nothing to be embarrassed by. I vote for Apple as Renovator of the Year if not the century (but not innovator).
———————————–
{Note: some people may argue with how I define innovator & innovation, that’s fine. I agree innovation is most often using what exists in different formulations or ways but the majority of people think of innovation as “original.”}
The strategic foundation is so simple and clearly good it is a worthwhile read for anyone in business. Whether you actually use the disruption methodology or not the idea of positioning in a way to create disruption (and therefore being distinct) is a powerful concept.
Drawing from experiences as the founder and chair of a global advertising agency, Dru gives us this practical, refreshing approach to thinking about advertising, positioning a business in the marketplace and … well … thinking in general.
His compelling concept of “disruption” is a three-step reasoning process for creating a set of new visions for successful growth.
Dru first explores how firms can get in a rut with their advertising strategies.
He then offers hundreds of examples of advertising in Europe, the United States, and Japan to explore cultural differences and government rules and regulations about advertising. Dru’s last section provides more detail and looks toward the future.
Rich with examples, this timely book is recommended for advertising-agency and marketing professionals as well as for corporate executives, consultants, and advanced students and academicians.
I have written on a variety of issues with regard to running a business and effective organizations (Running a Business Part 1 and Part 2, Collaboration & Consensus Part 1 & Part 2).
But I came across this video which discusses “the surprising science of motivation.”
It is a long video (18+ minutes) and Daniel Pink, the presenter, is a little practiced on occasion in his delivery but the information is nice. There were two things in the video which I appreciated.
One I had felt but had never been able to confirm.
The other I already knew but hadn’t written about yet.
1. Motivation Incentives.
Maybe it’s because I have worked with several advertising agency owners who wanted to run their agencies like manufacturing plants, but this issue has been near and dear to my heart for quite awhile. The video talks about “carrot and stick” motivational techniques and crap like that.
He uses some nice simple illustrations and some fact based conclusions for why the typical ways we try to motivate each other fail in business today.
A Daniel Pink Quote:
“There’s a mismatch between what science knows and business does.”
Possibly because most of the organizations I have either consulted for or worked at have been more “idea driven” versus “product output” organizations I have always believed (maybe more a feeling) that financial based reward models sucked. Daniel finally gave me some facts (from studies):
“Once the task called for even rudimentary cognitive skills a larger reward led to poorer performance.”
“As long as task involved only mechanical skills, bonuses worked, i.e., higher pay = better performance.”
Halleluiah.
That isn’t to say people in a cognitive driven business shouldn’t be fairly compensated; it simply states that rewarding financially to increase productivity is not the most effective path.
So if it isn’t financial rewards, what does help productivity?
2. Constructed Autonomy.
This is all about self direction within a solid construct of vision and company ‘direction.’ This is something I have believed to be an effective characteristic of effective organizations for some time. It is most likely embodied within larger franchise organizations (in some form or fashion) but it is easier to see it in those organizations because they are obviously fragmented and local autonomy works within some “rules” construct.
So.
The video.
In addition to talking about motivating employee behavior he also talks about creating an environment for productivity. I wrote about this in Organizational Alignment.
But.
He reminded me when he discusses the idea of autonomy about what I call “constructed autonomy” environments (yup. I do love contradictions).
I used the whole Constructed Autonomy idea in a consulting presentation in early spring (with a source reference) as I discussed organizational alignment and creating the most effective organization.
I apologize but for the life of me I cannot dig up the source for that autonomy business idea but I believe there was a big European based study on organizational behavior that talks about it (if I can find that presentation on some thumb drive I will source it).
My “twist” on the Autonomy thing was to tie it to a tightly constructed organizational vision. To me it’s all about giving employees within the organization lots of freedom within a well defined construct (not a box but rather a guiding star they can always locate).
Ok.
Maybe not lots of freedom but enough freedom on some key things (whatever they may be that is relevant to that particular organization).
Ok.
So here’s the deal with Autonomy.
Every time I have used the word “autonomy” to an organizational owner, President, Sr. VP, whatever…their faces pale, hands grip the table a little harder, they may even gasp a little and their voices quiver slightly with fear.
Autonomy means lack of control.
Autonomy means I need to trust my employees.
Autonomy means “so then what do I do”? (sorry, had to throw that last one in).
But autonomy on the ground:
permits a slight level of localization (if that is relevant to an organization)
certainly creates a higher level of responsiveness (good for customer satisfaction)
actually is a good idea/innovation generator (as long as you have a feedback mechanism)
automatically creates a higher level of energy within an organization
builds a happier organization because it creates a stronger sense of ownership & responsibility
It takes a strong leader with a clearly articulated vision to make autonomy work within an organization (if you don’t, then autonomy simply fragments an organization by permitting pieces to go flying off in every direction aimlessly).
So.
That’s the “Constructed” portion of it. In my Running a Business Part 2 I described this as one end of the bookends. A clearly articulated vision, mission, okay … what ‘the organization is going to be good at’. And ruthlessly good at.
If that is provided as the “North Star,” then Autonomy always knows what direction to steer toward. And because of that North Star, autonomous groups can wander slightly but have an opportunity to course correct (
which, by the way, is also a good evaluation mechanism for employees).
There you go.
A nice video sparking some clarification on my part.
I have always believed the moment you own a contradiction is the moment you capture an emotional and intellectual awareness.
I encountered one on Tuesday.
Letting go and holding on.
That was the day my 15 year old dog died. That morning I was ready to let go and wanted to hold on.
Walking into the vet with my dog’s head resting on my shoulder I had already said goodbye alone at home. I was ready to let go.
And yet.
When I laid him down on his towel at the vet I asked for a couple minutes more.
I wanted to hold on. What I chose to do was scratch him behind his ear and say goodbye. I know he couldn’t feel it. It was more for me then it was for him. But. It was my last time to hold on to him before I let go.
I talk with them about what it takes to be successful in a career (and life).
My favorite topic to discuss is “character.”
I describe it as a fork in the road. Okay. A shitload of forks in the road.
A moment, or moments, where you have a choice which helps define who you will be moving forward in life.
I ceratainly never mean to suggest I know “the right path” … all I mean I that we all have choices to do “the right thing” or “the wrong thing” and those types of decisions go a long way to defining “once and for all who you are.”
The other thing I happen to mention which I oddly enough learned in the advertising world … each moment matters.
If you find an excuse to not do what is best one moment … well … the next moment is even easier to not do the right thing -… and then the next thing you know you are on the slippery slope and you cannot get off.
Anyway.
This is a Life truth. And don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.
“Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the men of old; seek what they sought.”
–
Matsuo Basho
===============
Well.
It sometimes seems like a fine line between being doomed to repeat past mistakes … and actually learning from history.
And I say that as a history nut and someone who loves anything to do with the past.
Well.
Except maybe just doing what was done in the past.
Anyway.
As I have said I am a collector of moments and I imagine this is just another facet of that warped personal characteristic. When I saw this quote I finally figured out how to explain what I saw in studying the past.
There are so many people in the business world (and government) who seem very focused on ignoring history. They almost seem to actively decide to repeat behavior … assuming, I imagine, that it will inevitably generate the desired response. I assume that is based on some warped version of “practice makes perfect” or possibly “we will just do it better than they did.”
All I can say for sure is that blind ignorance leads to stupidity.
And maybe what is worse is this is conscious choiceful ignorance.
And, harshly, it seems like it incorporates even a little lazy.
But … bottom line … it is silly stupidity because with a little curiosity you can better understand that people in the past were pretty smart.
They often sought the same things we do now.
And while the path they chose may not have gotten them there there is value in walking the path to see what they saw.
To be clear.
You do not have to do what they did … simply see what they saw.
That, in itself, is learning … well … that is … if you choose to see it.
Note: This is the first of a two-part piece that I wrote early last year for my agency and clients about marketing in a recession. Look for part 2 in the coming days.
==================
The current environment is one that cannot be ignored.
We are in a recession.
People, businesses and consumers, have less discretionary money. Businesses will be cutting back on expenses and marketing departments will have to do more with less. This means that business goals will still be there and more challenging to meet and Marketing departments will have to do it with less money. This white paper outlines some thoughts on how marketers can be a little smarter with their money to position themselves to be successful in the marketplace.
Let’s begin by talking about what is happening in the marketplace. And why maybe some of the past recession rules may not apply moving forward in 2009.
Comparing the 2008-2009 recession to past recessions
This generation hasn’t faced this scenario before. In fact, not many adults who dealt with this scenario in the 1930’s remain (to maybe guide us). Yes. I am suggesting we cannot compare recent recession learning and need to go back to the Great Depression for learning.
In a traditional recession people are worried about losing jobs as companies cut back to face the economic challenges. In the current scenario the entire financial infrastructure seems to be breaking down – globally.
Boy, that sounds like the Depression era doesn’t it? Entire companies, brands as they may be, which have been in existence through generations are crumbling. Icons of stability are not only looking less stable they are ceasing to exist.
The difference between now and recent recession periods in the consumer’s mind can be summarized – “I am worried about losing my job versus even if I do all of these things right and keep my job can I still make it.”
Don’t be surprised when people shift into a full survival mode. And not just low and middle income people but even large wealth groups.
In this kind of environment it may seem silly to talk about marketing or protecting your brand. But these topics are relevant to business success and the economy in general. The economy machine will continue to run on strong functional products and services being marketed to people. ‘Fluff’ products and services-products and services surviving more on image than performance and ‘fluff’ marketing-will not survive.
Discretionary versus non-discretionary category marketing
The marketing rules of the game are going to vary between discretionary and non-discretionary categories. People will treat marketing messages for “items I need” and “items I want” with a different scorecard.
Discretionary categories, like soda, cigarettes, candy, movies, etc., will certainly be able to get away with traditional image driven campaigns. In fact, historical evidence suggests that lower cost discretionary items will prosper in difficult economic times (according to annualized increases in consumer spending in the UK 1989-91 movie revenue grew 16%, alcohol 10%, and sports & toys 6% – source: DDB “capturing opportunities in challenging times.”).
Bottom line is that in uncertain times people will still be seeking moments of indulgence or escapism. They will just be more thoughtful and low cost indulgent moments will prosper.
It is in non-discretionary-like categories where things will get challenging. Branding campaigns, soft image driven look & feel, in non-discretionary categories will be bad. Very bad. They will be seen as the actions of uncaring, “fat” companies. (see recent example of automotive CEO’s flying first class to Washington DC meeting). Campaigns need not be pedantic but they should err on the side of being more overt in their messaging of benefits and value. Companies messaging and spending cannot be perceived as wasteful but useful, not pandering but compassionate and not imagery but rather benefit-driven.