The few employees remaining are being more productive
People are drinking more cheap liquor and not in restaurants.
Am I the only one to conclude that drinking cheap liquor increases productivity in the workplace and may be a key variable in increased unemployment and the recession?
First. The Labor Department says new claims for unemployment insurance rose again (this was 2/4/10 report). Surprise, huh? Oh. And it’s a separate post but what am I counted as? I am not working but I don’t claim unemployment insurance. I cannot envision I am the only one. I guess once again I am just “unclassified.”
Second. In another report Thursday, the Labor Department said worker productivity rose more than expected in the October-December quarter as companies squeezed more output from their employees. All I can say is “cheap bastards.”
Anyway. Productivity rose a seasonally adjusted 6.2% in the fourth quarter, above analysts’ expectations of a 6% rise. The increase follows two quarters of sharply rising productivity. Overall, productivity has risen 5.1% in the past four quarters, the most since the 12 months ending with the first quarter of 2002.
Third. In a third report last year, the lowest-priced liquor segment, with brands such as Popov vodka that can go for less than $10 for a fifth, grew the fastest, with volume rising 5.5%, after edging up 0.6% in 2008. Meanwhile, the most expensive price range, roughly $30 or more for a 750 ml bottle (think Grey Goose, owned by Bacardi), fell the most, tumbling 5.1%. Sales in stores — which make up three-quarters of liquor sales — rose about 2.1%, while sales in restaurants fell 3%.Sales volume for the cheapest versions of tequila rose 21%, the fastest of any type of spirit.
Fourth. Hey. I am no Einstein but I do know that A + B = C (or squared or whatever). So. I conclude cheap liquor is helping create this recession. Eliminate liquor and employees will be less productive and then companies will need to hire more people to maintain their productivity. (Hey, I took Economics in college).
Once again Enlightened Conflict combats ignorance and is the first to tell the truth about the recession.
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.
The first morning in 15 years I woke up without my best buddy.
While these recent days, as he got older and older, the mornings were typically quiet instead of the earlier hustle and hyperness associated with border collieness there is still a silence that is somewhat overwhelming. There is an emptiness where the space was so full.
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.
“If you spent your life concentrating on what everyone else thought of you, would you forget who you really were? What if the face you showed the world turned out to be a mask… with nothing beneath it?”
—–
Jodi Picoult
============
Ok.
Thoughtful reimaging as a way to reinvigorate sales (lets call it smart branding).
As the concept we labeled as branding starts moving into its next generation, we need to start looking at all those brands we did such a nice job of creating and figuring out what to do with all that smart thinking we did back then.
All the hype around branding created hundreds of books and “how to’s,” leading to a lot of brands that really are hitting the wall today. By seeking that Holy Grail, many brands began walking down a great looking path that is now reaching a dead end.
The truth? It is quite possible that we in the marketing world simply over thought (heresy…I know) that which was a quite simple and tried and true marketing concept (just not called branding) instilled in us by marketing greats like David Ogilvy, Stanley Resor, Rosser Reeves(i.e. the real Don Draper) etc.
What did they suggest?
Say one thing. Say it well.
Too often we in the marketing business feel like we need to re-invent to be successful – or maybe it is a silly belief we need to make it sound new.
Regardless, brand ‘reinvention’ sometimes is not the best path.
Oftentimes it is more about reintroducing a quality or characteristic of the brand that maybe even the brand has forgotten about. What I mean by this is we need to reach inside the brand/company body and find a core value, or character trait, that a new generation of shoppers & users find relevant.
Because that is what reimaging is really about … making your brand likeable from an emotional standpoint. How often do you hear a younger generation … and by younger that could be a Gen-Xer < say a 40ish and not a tween> say ‘oh, that is a brand my parents loved’ as an excuse to not consider, rather than some rational decision?
Most brands that cross generations have solved the rational truths (heck … they have to at least meet their buyers’ basic needs or they would have died by now anyway).
Maybe it is simply about reawakening the soul of the brand. That sounds a little esoteric but aren’t most relationships based on something more than rational things? Soul mates and such.
Okay.
With all that said. Where should thoughtful reimaging be appropriate? If the original brand premise is solid and well thought out, then this idea should apply mostly to companies who have maybe been in business for over 20 years or so. And in fact, in theory the older the company the better the reimaging opportunity.
Once again. Let me be clear on this … what do I mean by Re-imaging?
Making a brand/company relevant once again to a new generation of buyers.
Good brand insight (inner truth insights) thinking typically generates the most creative insights for these types of companies.
Okay.
Let me take a minute and talk about Thoughtful Reimaging.
Thoughtful reimaging is about revitalizing an existing brand or company. You could say it is about breathing new life into a brand. Maybe even better said to a client is “hey, your customer base is getting old and new customers are gravitating to other brands, we need to refresh your image to make you appealing to them. But, hey, this doesn’t mean we are going to ask you to change. We just simply need to find a characteristic, part of the soul of the company or brand, and reintroduce you to people. It’s not about changing or reinventing yourself. It is more about showing people another side of your personality. It is more about your brand that we can showcase to these new potential buyers so they recognize you as a choice.”
Bottom line.
Reimaging is not about re-inventing yourself, but rather assembling characteristics or attributes and then repackaging them, or highlighting something, to make people look at the company/brand in a different way. The means to successful reimaging typically resides in the past. Gathering up characteristics that made that company successful in the past and simply reminding the internal company and the external constituents all the reasons why they were “liked” in the first place. That doesn’t mean we cannot ‘attach’ something new to existing attributes, it simply means that it is (1) easier if you leverage from something existing and (2) more believable if you use as many existing perceptions/attitudes as possible.
Okay.
No one said what I just stated would be easy. But it is certainly something worth doing well.
With all that said, a rebranding process should be designed to tear apart the fabric of the exiting company/brand, seeking (in order of priority):
the functional product/service offerings at the foundation (what is delivered day-in and day-out)
the origins of the company/brand or the origins of the vision
original business goals/objectives
existing perceptions and attributes
company infrastructure information (company construct which may affect the functional delivery day-in and day-out) – this includes any changes to that infrastructure now and in the past that may have affected perceptions/attitudes/satisfaction
desired perceptions & attitudes
desired business goals/objectives
The reason the last two items are the last priorities in the suggested process is because you should seek to find the ‘gap’ between where you were, where you are and ultimately where you want to be in order to assess the most effective & efficient path to reach your ultimate objective.
“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.
December 26, 2004. I was there. On that day Ukrainians went back to the election booths and a majority of them again voted for true democratic candidate, Viktor Yushchenko (an earlier “politically managed” election had his opposition – Russian supported – winning a very close, corrupt election). This time the election successfully voted Yushchenko into office.
Viktor Yushchenko
This was the culmination of an amazing 17 days (I was only there for 4 of them), through harsh cold and sleet, where millions of Ukrainians staged nationwide nonviolent protests that came to be known as the “Orange Revolution.” The entire world watched this outpouring of the people’s will in a country whose international image had been warped by its Russian-supported corrupt rulers. By the time victory was announced–with Viktor Yushchenko’s electoral triumph–the Orange Revolution had set a major new landmark in the post communist history of Eastern Europe.
Election Night in Kiev
It was a win for democracy. It was exciting. And it reminded me that:
(1) I think we sometimes take democracy for granted here in the good ole US of A.
(2) Democracy is tough.
(3) Significant change – complete overhaul – is even tougher.
But first let me say.
It was an amazing place to be at that time. The political parties’ supporters were defined by orange and blue respectively. Throughout the city people wore their colors proudly. Streams of cars would drive the streets, horns blaring and colors streaming from their windows and antennas. There was pushing and shoving and yelling and the entire city just crackled with energy. It became even more special to me when that day I stepped into the elevator at my hotel and found myself sharing the space with Kofi Anan (who was pleasantly cordial…and interestingly – we Americans should note – he recognized me as an American even though I said nothing and addressed me in English).
That night into the following morning, Independence Square was filled with people, with music playing and speakers addressing the crowd. Khreschatyk Boulevard, the main street, was closed off and filled with street vendors and food and musicians. I am fairly sure the city did not sleep that night. And I was in the midst basking in their excitement.
But as I remember that spectacular experience, back to the three things it reminds me of:
Taking democracy for granted
“Razom nas bahato! Nas ne podolaty!” This was the chant I listened to in the crowd of hundreds of thousands that filled Kiev’s Independence Square on December 26th. “Together, we are many! We cannot be defeated!” Emerging from a sea of orange, the mantra signaled the rise of a powerful civic movement, a skilled political opposition group, and a determined middle class that had come together to stop the ruling elite from falsifying an election and hijacking Ukraine’s presidency. (maybe a precursor to the Obama campaign).
These people fought for democracy. And these people fought against communist memories. The majority of voters had lived under a communist regime at one time or another. They knew exactly what they didn’t want. And maybe that is what we forget having lived within only a democracy…what we don’t want. We have only had democracy and sometimes it is easy to overlook what you have. We shouldn’t.
Democracy is tough.
Democracy is about pluralism (I know that is simplistic but throw me a bone). Inherent in pluralism is being open and listening. Let’s face it…listening is difficult. Even in your own small world in business or life how many good listeners do you know? They are in the minority. People are so busy talking or shouting out their point of views they forget we are a country of “freedom to.” But that is tough. And that underlying belief foundation makes it not only tough for us (who have lived, ate and breathed it for 200+ years) but think about how tough it is for someone in which it is new.
For anyone out there who simply suggests countries are better off with democracy, make sure you think very hard about that. Yes. Democracy is powerful and good in intentions. But it is tough. And it is tougher than simply saying “we are now a democracy.” The Orange Revolution is five years old and they are still struggling to get their arms around the democracy thing. But they won’t quit (and that is the power of democracy).
Significant change – complete overhaul – is even tougher.
Let’s say the Boston Red Sox bought the Yankees and the Yankees ceased to exist and had to become part of the Red Sox nation (or vice versa if that pained you too much). Okay. I don’t mean to diminish the democracy of an entire country but you get the point.
I don’t care if you are a small company, a person trying to change habitual behavior or an entire country…wholesale change is tough. As a guy who has managed business transition I do know I like some of the old incorporated into the lot of the new when transitioning. In this case I am not sure they could…or maybe they tried but I couldn’t see it…or even if it is applicable here. What I do know is that wholesale change is never seamless.
And change, transition, requires people with resilience to ‘stay the course.’ I am pretty sure Victor Yushchenko, the Orange winner and current president, won’t make it past this point. And in a way it is a shame and in a way that is the way change works. People play roles. His was to forge the initial structure to make way for the next person to take it to the next level.
As I conclude this story and thought: I love Kiev. It is one of my favorite cities in the world. I love the Ukrainian people and their culture. But I truly respect Ukraine having experienced the height of the Orange Revolution. It was an amazing experience. I would like to think I am a slightly better person for that experience. I do know for sure that I take our democracy and country a little less for granted because of that experience.
So pull out The Constitution one day. Scan The Bill of Right
s. We are a lucky group of people who had some pretty damn smart and resilient people who started this thing we call America. Don’t take it for granted.