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

“Simplicity is the final achievement. After one has played a vast quantity of notes and more notes, it is simplicity that emerges as the crowning reward of art.”

—

Frédéric Chopin

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

Whew.

Simplicity.

Discussing what is simple, and what is simplicity, maybe one of the most complex and complicated topics you will ever discuss.

It is, well, never simple.

I sometimes think we get confused when we discuss simplicity. For simplicity is not actually achieved in the stimulus … or in the delivery … but rather in the response.

Now. That doesn’t mean a ‘simple’ stimulus is unable to generate a simple response. In fact it may more often than not. Uhm. “May”. Simple stimuli are just as likely to confuse. Provide ambiguity. Generate a feeling of ‘less than.’ In other words, they simply communicate nothing. So when someone says ‘show a picture’ or ‘say it in 5 seconds or you lose them’ and be done with it … I just don’t think it is that simple.

That is simply looking at it from a stimulus point of view. Now. That’s not a bad place to start … but it is a means to an end. Far too often we look at that as the answer when the reality is simplicity can be delivered in so many ways your head will spin.

Chopin got it right. He wrote music which could often be complex and intertwined with nuance … but simplicity was achieved in the final achievement. And that is about writing, or creating, from the edge.

Let me explain.

Writing things from the edges has nothing to do with danger or risk taking or even ‘living on the edge’ type perceptions everyone seems to have. The edge is simply less cluttered. It is what simplicity is about.

People seem to get very very confused when they talk about simplicity and complexity, but if you want to make sense of a lot of shit — just move your ass closer to an edge.

It is not scary.

It is simply clearer there.

Well. I guess clarity can be scary … but you get my point.

All I know is that when I write … or think … I do my best when I place my chair and laptop on the edge and think.

Ok. Let me talk some business.

Simplicity as edging closer to the edges.

In business … no matter how we choose to communicate a brand <public relations, broadcast, print, web, whatever> the only place where the brand truly exists is in the heads of people.

Products & services are real. Brands are simply figments of our imagination.

I say that because when you start discussing this whole wacky branding thing ‘edge’ rarely enters the conversation. Sure. Simplicity does, but not edge. This means a boatload of companies <and a shitload of start-up businesses> think they can just use a visually driven smart ass attention-grabbing approach to their advertising and they will conquer the world. They think this kind of simplicity will grab some prime real estate in our already overcrowded brains.

To be clear. This is a crappy idea, but one that even traditional companies find tempting. Smart-ass ads often get talked about and noticed, but, just as often, they fail to make a brain connection. In other words … they get attention but they don’t get results.

Look. Our minds are like real estate. Space is limited and we can’t let every brand have a place to stay.

However, you can improve your chances of gaining brain space and making a connection—a brain and brand connection that will truly inspire recall and the desired outcomes.

How? Well.

Someone had an idea called ‘brand humanity.’

Brand humanity, in its simplest terms, is a brand’s emotional essence. It must be inherent in the product or service offered. It must be relevant to people’s dreams, hopes, desires, aspirations. It must relate in human terms to human beings. Advertising must capture and communicate this emotional essence. If it doesn’t, somebody must go back to the drawing board. Because a brand that doesn’t appeal on basic human levels really has no hope of success in today’s marketplace.

Whether you like the ‘brand humanity’ nomenclature or not it is a good thought but not a simple thing to do.

And, no, I am not suggesting creating a complex complicated stimulus is needed to achieve this objective, but I am simply suggesting that a soundbite or one visual may not achieve what you want. Want?:

What makes this brand important to someone?

What need does it meet <or problem it solves>?

What desire <Maslow stuff> does it fulfill?

Answer the questions, and you’ll find the connection points of the brand. But don’t expect the journey to be easy. Finding the points takes a disciplined, strategic development process that moves from the complex to the simple, from the rational to the emotional. It is finding out what is important to a person and  creating that connection. I imagine it is as simple as finding what truth will make it matter to a person. But in writing that … we all know that truth is never really simple nor easy.

What I do ask people to think about when discussing simplicity is to remember that everyone loves a good story. And the best business <brand> stories are all about reaching inside people at a deeper and more enduring emotional level to link to the functional offering you provide. Some people call his ‘personalization’ but it is really just attaching the functional problem being solved with personal  ‘issues’ … Maslow stuff …  self esteem <conformity versus individuality>, self doubt and economic well being. I would also note the best stories are simple incorporating elements of hero, conflict, and goal <note: whatever you say has to be simple enough that it can be told by any consumer or front line sales people>.

This means the company & brand is no longer just about differentiated services, consistent delivery, optimized touch-points, and re engineered activities. Brands now need this ‘humanity’ <not to be confused with social responsibility> based in experiences, distinct identifiable moments and character.

I think we could take some lessons from technology.

Technology has ALWAYS <not just in today’s world> been an interesting thought leader with regard to simplicity. Their core expertise has always been in the business of masking the complex with simplicity.

Things like flipping a switch to turn on a light bulb, picking up the phone and hearing a dial tone, or pressing a button and turning on a television set are only easy on the surface.

Someone had to spend years developing the underlying technologies that enable much of our modern lives, and then they had to make sure that the tools were accessible to people and that while we didn’t understand why it worked as it did, we trusted it to work.

This principle carries to the mobile age with enabling touch-screens where sliding a finger to unlock a phone is simple … the technology that makes it possible is not.

All that said.

Simplicity and stories: hero, conflict, goal.

– Pick the conflict that matters

– Differentiate resolution of conflict meaningfully

– Imbue the character of the hero in every action taken to resolve the conflict

Good stories are fairly simple. The story needs to remain simple in its focus, i.e., the simpler it is the better. The simplicity has to be relevant … in being desirable to consumers, distinctive <not necessarily unique> from competition, deliverable by the organization and durable over time.

If you stay true to simplicity <not simple>, you make it simpler for people to connect with it. And if you make it easy, they’ll gladly give you some prime brain real estate which every marketer is so desperate to get hold of.

Therein lies the issue.

Easy and simple is in the eyes of the beholder.

In the end.

Despite the fact you can have experts lining up to tell you all about what simplicity is … and how to use simplicity to create a brand and make an impression … we’re not sure exactly how or where the human brain makes the connections that make a brand possible.

All I know for sure is that there is no formula for simplicity.

Chopin nailed the issue.

His music was complex and sometimes complicated.

And, yet, people sit and listen for minutes on end … and say afterwards:  “that was simply beautiful.”

I imagine I am simply saying simplicity is not defined in how you say or communicate something, but rather how it is accepted.

 ====

“This is the way the world ends

Not with a bang but a whimper. “

—

T.S Eliot

====

“This is the way simplicity ends

Not with a bang but a whimper.”

—

Bruce McTague

===

Simplicity may be one of the most complex concepts in the world and, yet. we relentlessly discuss it in simplistic ways. “It seems simple …” may be one of the most misused and misguided statements and thoughts in today’s world.

Simplicity is anything but simple.

I tend to believe we make simplicity, well, simple because when viewed in hindsight we pick & choose what seemed like something that changed in a blink of an eye because of some simplicity.

We look backwards and point at what appears to be simplicity and say “yes, that’s it.”

But.

Simplicity, more often than not, consists of two opposing things – 1st, security/reliability, which anchors the sense of safety thereby justifying the 2nd common sense aspect of simplicity, & passion/risk/newness, which anchors the sense of movement thereby justifying the smartness aspect of simplicity — sense of stability AND movement.

The two are opposed. Yet, in a “simple world”, if you have one, you can’t have the other.

In addition. Simplicity is at its best when the decision, or act, is a reflection of staying true to oneself <or the organization/business> and when the decision makers are in their element <not being asked to collaborate or be involved if & when it is not their strength>.

Uh oh. This means simplicity, which should be reflective of the situation at hand, is rather a reflection of two very personal things:

• Attitude: safe and risk
• Self compass: true to oneself <strengths>

And therein lies the foundation of complexity. We live in a world of collaboration and anything but individuals and individuality in business ideation & implementation . Basically, simplicity is being demanded by the whole and implemented by the parts. Aligning attitudes and desires is difficult. And so is insuring aligning in strengths in today’s idealistic view of collaboration.

And maybe that is where simplicity faces its most difficult contradiction – facing the conflict in aligning making bigness small <in vision for the whole> and capturing the importance, and bigness, of the small.

Here is what I mean.

The whole thrives on overarching simplicity while the parts thrive on the underlying simplicity of details <which are inherently simple individually but complex as a collective whole>.

Even suggesting that there are two levels of simplicity implies complexity.

But most importantly we, in business, take ideas, big & small, and try and forge them into their most simplest strongest honed forms  all the while seemingly forgetting that … well … it is not just an idea, but the people involved that matter. Inevitably the idea needs to impact people’s attitudes & behaviors. And we would be silly to think that even the idea itself, as it is forged by each individual blacksmith, isn’t being crafted with some individualistic attitudes & behaviors.

In addition even if whatever you are trying to simplify sounds simple in your own mind <as an idea simplifier> the idea is more likely to be impacted by other people and other constituents. Many “simplicity arguers’ would argue that involving so many constituents makes simplicity needlessly complex … and they would be right … and wrong.

Yes. It makes it more complex.

No. They are wrong in that it is not needless. The complexity actually brings in the pragmatism of reality <and I would argue effectiveness.>.

All this means is that simplicity is rarely simple and trying to capture them in a meaningful single word is not only silly but sells the depth & breadth of a decision or situation short. This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t seek simplicity. But what it does mean is that simple or simplicity shouldn’t be defined by rules or milestones or trite “say it in 10 seconds or less” dictates or, well, any boundaries. Simplicity is reflective of the time, place, people, situation and solution needed.

What may make simplicity even more complex is, oddly enough, that part which should make it the simplest. Simplicity, more often than not, is the nitty gritty stuff and not the more glamorous big vision or “big idea” stuff. It is about marrying principle and pragmatism and gradual improvement – piece by piece and part by part.

In other words … simplicity IS the complexity.

Simplicity is the watchword of the day. But we don’t want to give up our freedom to choose — we want options, we want products and services that fit our individual circumstances.   All those choices give us the antithesis of simplicity: they give us complexity. So how do we get simplicity without giving up choice?  We need simplicity and complexity together, we need simple complexity.  What we want is SIMPLEXITY.

Source 

Simplexity is actually a term used in the mathematics of complexity theory. A woman named Susan Abbott hijacked it for the Marketing and Customer Experience world. Jack Cohen and Ian Stewart, authors of The Collapse of Chaos: Discovering Simplicity in a Complex World, came up with the term in this context.

Maybe it is because of his ‘simplexity’ in everything we do and own <which we love> hate at exactly the same time> we tend to want to attach ‘more’ to simplicity. I wrote once before that great simplicity seems too bare and that simplicity is not defined in how you say or communicate something, but rather how it is accepted.

Suffice it to say, great simplicity seems to beg to remain less <which too us hasty perfection-oriented people seems not enough>.

Simplicity tends to not end with a bang but rather a whimper.

Ok. I am going to end with a business point here.

What I just shared is also what I believe is the reason why businesses comfortable in a project based relationship, rather than an annual contract based relationship, are doing well.

Huh? Go back to the desires of the whole versus the desires of the parts point I made earlier. There are certainly business opportunities for the whole & the parts. Some call this a belief that simplicity sells, but you need complexity to scale. However, philosophically, what links any business success discussion to a whole OR parts discussion is the success of components rather than simplistic vision. Not to degrade the value of vision, but success inevitably is grounded in the grind, the confident steps taken in the interest of progress and actual “doing-type stuff.” And that is where “visionary consultants”, sometimes called “smart tree planters”, get it wrong. They envision a rich green plush forest and all the while inadvertently complicate the actual planting of the frickin’ trees.

In the absence of anything else, shit still needs to be done. And each part needs to be done well without sacrificing the wellness of the whole. The business world, and businesses in general, is ever increasingly interconnected <internally & externally> and ignoring that, simply thinking that if my part does my part well that the whole will succeed is … absolutely and completely flawed thinking.

The parts are always, always, connected in some way with the greater whole.

So therefore a project always needs to be done well and done correctly, the true winner in the project world is the one who recognizes the greater whole and can seamlessly slide its successful part into the greater whole. For a project based company the value rises up … successful project management, successful project integration into the rest of the puzzle and ultimately, even in some small way, successful involvement of the furthering of the greater vision of the whole. It is ground up value building with, I imagine, the ultimate intent to gain additional business relationship assignments up the value chain.

All that said. I believe I am simply suggesting that businesses in the project business not only build value with business partners the easiest way <pragmatically> but also build business relationships in the simplest way <through parts rather than whole>.

I also believe in today’s business world that despite some mental angst a hirer of a supplier/partner has when viewing project relationships versus long engagement relationship a hirer business actually prefers the concept of initially hiring on a project basis <seems like a trial period> and maintaining on a project basis <seems like an ability to eliminate at any point type flexibility> and extending on a project by project basis <seems like less risk because they have proven before and more value because project implies “not taking the work for granted”>.

Oh.

And a project sounds so much simpler than a long term relationship. Uhm. But if I have been working with you on a project basis for over 5 years isn’t that a long term relationship?

Geez.

Just one more example of how simplicity is complex.

Business and Life tends to rush toward the complex simply because it most likely offers us the perception of ‘more value’ and additional control and ‘something better’ and, yet, we yearn for this faux Utopia found in a place called ‘simplicity’.

But. Simplicity, in its heart and soul, is made up of two opposing attractive qualities: safety & consistency + risk & new.

In the end. I imagine we all simply seek simplexity.

===

“Men rush towards complexity, but they yearn towards simplicity.

They try to be kings; but they dream of being shepherds.”

Gilbert K. Chesterton

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

===

“What is the difference between unethical and ethical advertising?

Unethical advertising uses falsehoods to deceive the public; ethical advertising uses truth to deceive the public.”

–

Vilhjalmur Stefansson

==

Every year around “Black Friday” I get asked about the value of marketing in a capitalistic society. Here is my view on whether Marketing is evil (or ethical versus unethical). Vilhjamur (from the quote) was a kick ass anthropologist (known for his description of the “Blond Eskimo” which is a Copper Inuit), his discovery of new lands in the Arctic, his approach to travel and exploration, and his theories of health and diet. I am not sure what the hell he knew about advertising, but he did say the quote I used.

I believe marketing people generally fall into three buckets.

1. Those who fabricate unimportant truths and tell you that they are important <these people are hacks and should be fired and told to pick up trash on the sides of highways>

2. Those who use existing unimportant truths and convince you that they are important <this is the largest group and will vary on a spectrum between those who do this knowingly – which puts them close to the highway garbage category – and those who are blissfully ignorant of what they are doing>

3. Those who take important truths and tell you that they are important <scarily this group may have the toughest job because we people are consistently uninterested in many important truths>

It would be nice to suggest this is a simple 1 to 3 scale or, at minimum, a one to 5 scale, but I believe someone could quite successfully argue this three group scoring would be a 1 to 10 scale with lots of broad interpretation and lots of caveats & excuses. Before any marketing person starts blathering about with caveats & excuses please make sure you read Bill Bernbach’s “Do this or Die” advertisement he wrote to advertising & marketing people (see marketing is evil part 2).

All that said I empathize with people who suggest marketing is evil (evil being a broader term for “convincing people to buy shit they don’t really need or want to buy before they saw the marketing”).

I empathize because if I were to do some scoring I believe I would tend to see a lot of 4’s and 5’s.

I empathize because I just don’t see a lot of marketing that seems to approach selling stuff from a “what is in the best interest of the people” perspective.

Look. I am all for capitalism and selling stuff, but a lot of marketing seems to lack a deeper moral/ethical substance. Not all, but some <a lot>. What makes it even more difficult to defend and discuss is that it is really difficult to put your finger on the core issue/rot/compromise that seems to creep into the internal moral compass one would hope marketers would have.

Why? Because of what I called ‘unimportant truths versus important truths.’ Both of which are truths just with some interpretation issues thrown in to make it all fuzzy.

About marketing truths

A beginning thought:

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

“Record companies are in the marketing business. Fashion probably wasn’t evil before marketing people got involved and tried to invent themselves and sell it to America’s youth by convincing them that the rest of America’s youth was already partaking. Fashion probably began as a groundswell of beauty: the tribe enjoying the way the buildings look and music sounds, right now, in this moment.  That’s valuable because it allows for substance to shift styles.  But marketing will do anything to avoid substance and engage only in style. No longer beauty that falls from trees like apples, fashion becomes shiny, scary chemical candy, unnatural and unhealthy.”

Kristen Hersh

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

Ok. There are so many great thoughts within it … well … it is scary.

‘fashion probably began as a groundswell of beauty.”

Think about this one. This is a big thought, much bigger than just about the fashion industry, & relevant to all of marketing. This whole thought revolves around substance versus style as the issue. It suggests marketing has no substance … hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm … or, maybe better said, it thrives less on substance than style. Here is the bigger thought hidden in there … “valuable because it allows for substance to shift styles.”

So. Substance creates beauty all on its own and marketing creates style to showcase that which may, or may not, have substance. Or, as earlier noted, maybe marketing becomes dependent upon unimportant truths.

Oh, even worse, “created truths” (a creative way of saying ‘lies’).

Ok. Does this alone make marketing evil? No. Ok, well, not all the time.

Because the key is substance and the truths that reside within.

Marketing has a habit of “creating truths.” Yeah … yeah .. yeah … someone is gonna come back and suggest “no, we aren’t creating truths, we are simply uncovering truths.”

Semantics.

Marketing is in the business of tearing apart the fabric of thought and identifying specific threads within the fabric that may be worth pointing out to people. In the end? It is a thread. And not the fabric.

An example?

“Stores Create More Holidays; Tissues Made for Summer, Pink Irons for Fall”

(Wall Street Journal in august 2011)

People see 4 seasons (unless you live in California or the North Pole) but retailers see anywhere from 13 to 20 seasons. All designed to get shoppers into their stores and buy stuff.

The fabric? The season. The threads? The 13 to 20 “seasons” retailers see.

Once again, is this evil, or lying, or even “unimportant truths”? This is a really really gray area. Creating more holidays. They are creating more sales, but inevitably they are just trying to create more interest. They do all of this because retailers want impulse purchases (oh, by the way, which naturally happen to any of us … and marketing doesn’t create this … you <your own head> creates this).

Anyway. Suffice it to say what they do is try to get you in the store more often because the more often you visit the more likely you are to buy stuff. Marketing does all of this quite thoughtfully.

So. Research says the average retail shopper visits a store once every two to three weeks. And shoppers go to the grocery store every seven to 10 days. That means traditional retailers added grocery items hoping to make people make more frequent shopping trips.

Do I begrudge retailers this? Nope. They have a business to run. And by being so “thoughtful” are they evil <in their quasi-manipulation of us shopping folk>? Nope.

And are they lying? Nope.

Let’s tear apart the fabric a little more.

In other words, let me try and and help you understand why there are a boatload of people out there who say marketing is evil. Because this next example really starts talking about “unimportant truths” and, in the end, we are talking about some sense of mental manipulation.

Let’s look how they do it to see if its lying or evil. Let’s look at a retailer’s 4, oops, 13 season year:

–          Superbowl

–          New Year’s Resolutions (January)

–          Lawn and Garden (April)

–          Back to School/College(July through August)

–          Gifts for children; early entertaining décor (October, November)

–          Last-minute gifts, stocking stuffers, food/entertaining (December)

–          Health and Wellness January features exercise equipment, supplements and vitamins, items tied to shoppers’ New Year’s resolutions

–          Spring (March to May) includes Easter, Graduation Day, Mother’s Day

–          Pink/Women’s Health October includes displays of pink products and stores offer women’s health screenings.

–          Fall Gatherings (Late September through November)

–          ‘the day after Thanksgiving event,’ aka Black Friday. Includes gifts and splurge items. (November)

–          Holiday Entertaining and Gifting (November, begins the day after black Friday)

–          Organization and Storage(January)

(and I am sure I missed a couple in there as well as I probably got some of the dates wrong, but, you get the point)

Why do they do this? Research shows that people are usually willing to spend more during “special seasons” and even more dollars if they are spending on their children.

Look. I don’t believe marketing is evil, but it is surely “wily smart” in that it is always seeking to find conscious or subconscious triggers to motivate behavior to encourage people to consume things.

But. Here is a truth. Impulse or not, marketing cannot really make someone do something they don’t want to do. I would also point out in today’s world with return guarantees, free return shipping, etc., it is almost next to impossible to maintain what could be construed as impulsive behavior decision (because it can so easily be “undone”).

Marketing is a business. You can certainly expect a retailer, and marketers, to make shopping as much of a science as possible. By “science” I mean by often “managing unimportant truths.” In addition, they will build model stores, displays and end-caps (things at the end of the aisles) to see what makes people buy the most.

Once again, is that evil? Nope. It’s just being smart about your business.

In general I don’t think marketing is the embodiment of the Evil Empire. I think most Marketing people just try to do the best job they can to sell things they represent.

Now. “The best” can be pretty bad at times.

Simplistically. Bad marketing is bad. And ignorance, or doing what you believe is the right thing to do, is no excuse for bad marketing or making the unimportant important. Good marketing sells substance or (still good) expresses the existing emotional relationships people have with products.

On marketing’s good days it ultimately helps the best companies and products win over the bad stuff.

On marketing’s BEST days they actually get people to believe the important truths.

Next.

Evil: confusing evil messaging and evil actions

I brought up the unimportant versus important truths upfront because I believe marketing‘s evilness really should be defined by that. But. issues gets compounded not just by what they say, but also by how and when they say it.

So beyond the message we shouldn’t get confused by marketer’s actions (which are mostly not evil, just absurdly annoying – which I imagine could be construed as some level of evilness). I do wish more marketers would pay attention to information available to them. According to Pitney Bowes research, consumers surveyed in France, Germany, the UK and the U.S. have indicated which marketing activities draw them closer and which act as a repellent. If marketers would pay attention, people are quite clear about what they want from marketing interactions. If marketers would pay attention they would clearly see many of their actions are simply not having the intended effect. Worse, inappropriate communications often diminish a brand’s attractiveness, thereby losing people’s interest and ultimately even existing customers opt out.

So. The good things? Customer satisfaction surveys. 75% were fine with them. Great opportunity for marketers to “not sell” but rather learn and create customized messaging/experiences based on each consumer’s preferences.

“This survey confirms that brands should listen to consumers before they send out their communications. Every interaction must honor the interests of the customer first, only then is a relevant offer or call to action acceptable to consumers. Each conversation between a brand and a customer is an opportunity to delight or disappoint. We’re all learning how to do more of the former and less of the latter.”

PitneyBowes Reasearch

On websites, 59% say they appreciate personalization such as “Welcome <name>.” For transactional sites, especially where purchases are being made, it can be reassuring to know that the site recognizes your personal account details and has a record of interactions to draw upon <note: ‘personalization’ is being discussed in some fairly absurd creepy ways these days>.

Okay. Now the annoying stuff. And where marketing, I believe, just doesn’t help itself. Efforts which are meant to be inviting but are just plain irritating to most consumers.

–          Asking customers to support a brand’s charity or ethical concerns (84%)

–          Sending offers from third-parties (83%)

–          Encouraging interaction with other consumers via an online community (81%).

Is this stuff evil? Of course not. But if you add these actions on top of the fact a marketer is most likely communicating an “unimportant truth” it is not only annoying but it is irrelevant. You have been intrusive and unimportant.

The double kiss of death.

Anyway.

Evil is always associated with people.

Truth or lie.

Annoying actions or relevant actions.

It all comes down to who is pulling the trigger. Here is where marketing runs into its most trouble: marketing people. Ok. Maybe it’s not the people , it’s just their common sense decision-making that seems to run into trouble. All too often it seems the marketing people manage to run into troubling ethical dilemmas and inevitably make some really bad, or certainly questionable, choices (with a consumer’s perspective in mind).

Most of the time these bad choices consist of less than the entire truth … or full disclosure of information the customer would want to know to make a reasonable decision. Let’s call this “selective truth telling.” Or, as earlier pointed out, selecting one thread in the fabric to point out. Or even “trying to convince you an unimportant truth is … well … important.” And, at its worst? Trying to convince you an unimportant truth is REALLY important. This is probably the best example of “the lie of silence” (which I have written about before). It’s all very tricky because most products & services tend to be good, useful products. And the ethical dilemma is how much information is it okay to hide <not tell> from the buyer to make a sale.

Oh. Silence. Omission. This is where many marketers will hide behind the excuse “but we only have so much time to capture someone’s attention.”

Shame on those marketers. You always have time to tell the important truth. And, in your heart of hearts, a good marketer knows that honesty and important truths win in the long run.

In the end, I do believe the thought of marketing as evil (in a true sense) is absurd. In an abstract sense (like Kristen mentions in her quote I used)? Well. Possibly. Evil is a strong word.  It could be truly that marketing, when gone awry, can warp the true essence of the intent. And that may seem evil, but it is just wrong.

However.

Evil or not.

As a marketer myself, I would like to remind all marketers we have a responsibility. What we say and what we do DOES impact what people think and ultimately can affect what they do. With that ‘power’ comes a responsibility.

And it would be evil, yes, evil for us to forget that.

Black Friday seems to bring out the worst in marketing. Maybe it is because on that one day, above all, Marketing people forget their greater responsibility in their pursuit of a business responsibility – sell shit. And maybe that is where I should end. Its not about evil or good, or ethical versus unethical, its about not being a shit while selling shit. Period.

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

Originally posted March 2012

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

“There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things.”

—

Niccolo Machiavelli

===========

“For the reformer has enemies in all those who profit by the old order, and only lukewarm defenders in all those who would profit by the new order.”

—

Niccolò Machiavelli

======

So. This is a discussion I had with myself recently with regard to change and creating a new order of things.

The mental discussion centered on two questions:

1. is it really chaos <blank slate change> ?
2. or is it more often reordering <assigning disparate ‘things’ into a new alignment> ?

I thought about this as I scanned the words of two of the most skewered policy makers of all time – Machiavelli and Kissinger. King makers and country breakers are thoughts that come to mind with those two names.

And, yet, both Diplomacy <Kissinger> and The Prince <Machiavelli> are must reads for anyone interested in foreign policy and diplomatic leadership. They both made me rethink some things I have thought about change and leading it.

The main thing I thought of was … well … the ‘leading’ part. Leading is what leaders do. That’s what you get paid to do. You see where you want the business to go, look at what needs to change to make it happen and then start leading the change.

Both Kissinger and Machiavelli discussed this as ‘shaping the arc of history.’ I would imagine neither would balk at a statement like this … “we will move forward, because if we do not move forward, what is to be said about us?”

Now.

If you read any Machiavelli he can come across as an arrogant immoral power hungry egotistical asshat.

If you read any Kissinger he can come across as an arrogant immoral power hungry egotistical asshat.

But both also can be read as incredibly smart insightful global thinkers whose mindset was always shaping the arc of history and countries rather than adapting to the world at hand. It is within the ‘shaping’ where both of them identified leadership. Their version of ‘shaping’ meant doing things to instigate change as well as envisioning what could be and stepping in to guide toward it or stop it from happening <which is easy to criticize in reflecting>.

Machiavelli unequivocally espoused an amoral approach to obtaining power and counseled the ambitious Prince to be prepared to commit heinous acts, acts most of us would not consider viable actions to take, in order to rise in position.

I am not espousing that.

The bigger learnings arise as you dig a little deeper into what he writes where you will find the wiser kernels of truth.

The biggest truth? To be a reformer, to be a change agent, to lead in the introduction of a new order of things, well,  you have to shape the arc of change that others are instigating.

Ah. Now this is where I had to start doing some rethinking in my own head. While I do prescribe to the ‘shape the arc of history & change’ leadership thought, I, as most of us do, see this as envisioning and creating the necessary change not shaping the arc of change. This is where change leadership gets tricky <if you accept that a leader wants to shape the arc of change>.

There are millions of articles, billions of pieces of advice, hundreds of designed programs and dozens of studied cases with regard to leading change. Leadership change is big time business.

Well. Here is the problem with all that change wisdom.

Unfortunately.

Most change is actually not leader driven, but rather people driven.

Yeah. Sometimes we, as leaders, are so focused on the change we want to make or encourage we ignore, or are oblivious to, the never-ending embers of change within the population of the business.

And, yes, I purposefully used “embers.”

Every healthy organization is teeming with ideas of what should be done as well as about what is being done — let’s call these ‘the embers within the population.’ Inevitably the embers will die, flame up and then out or become a forest fire. Part of what a leader needs to discern is which fires will flame out on their own, which flames may start burning uncontrollably and which fires should be nurtured.

But, suffice it to say, embers exist in any organization and population worth a shit. Some is discontent, some may simply be passion that just needs to be directed & focused and some, well, some are the embers of a real revolution <real change>. And even revolution can take on different faces.

There can be an organizational changing revolution — one which demands leadership to change or die.

There can be an organizational shifting revolution — one which demands the leadership to recognize a new & better way of doing things or thinking about things.

But when change comes from the population … leaders get uncomfortable. This discomfort is beyond the simple ‘it was not my idea’ crap.

Think about it this way.

A leader’s natural reaction to almost anything is to control.

Out of control = bad.

Control = good.

The difficulty with people driven change is that it automatically falls into the ‘out of control’ bucket in a leaders head because they <a> didn’t think of it or <b> they didn’t instigate it or <c> they didn’t even create the arc.

This is where I really needed to think. Because, as a leader, I could discuss leadership driven change until the end of time. But managing and guiding and fostering population driven change? Well. That’s different. Other than ‘idea boxes’ and ‘brain storming meetings’ and ‘organizational improvement ideas’ most of us leader types don’t actively think about change management as ‘employee revolution management.’

It demands a different set of skills. You would have to dump many of the tried & true tools. You would have to maybe not throw out the old handbook of ‘change management’, but you certainly have to put on more of a ‘herder cap’ and a ‘respond to the context and situation hat’ rather than leading and ‘linear responses.’

Now. I will suggest that any leader who wants to keep their sanity shouldn’t invest a shitload of energy trying to uncover embers. I would rather suggest time is better spent continuously feeding oxygen into the population so that the embers which could flame up do so and the ones which will inevitably suffocate and smother themselves will do so on their own.

<everyone should note that dictator and autocrat type leaders would absolutely hate that last thought>

Good leaders just need to face the fact that sometimes opportunity does not always arise when you want it to. Sometimes you need to create the opportunity <because it is the right time for you> and sometimes you have shape the opportunity that is placed in your lap.

I will say that population revolutions, more often than not, are grounded in some real pragmatic and positive thoughts. The direction may be misguided but the embers are real and warm and worth nurturing.

I say that because this means revolutions driven by people more often than not exist in a structured world, not chaos, defined by some natural laws of behavior which are sometimes missed because of the revolutionary weird, incredible things that begin happening. A leader has to try to make sense of all aspects and bring the worlds together to create the necessary change <in this case … this is where the leadership occurs and not in the definition of the change>.

I will also suggest, as I think about his, it is often not productive to try to understand and explain the origins and consequences of ‘embers’ in any sensible way.

It is not productive because where you isolate the ‘logical beginnings’ you will most likely be creating ‘logic’ which wasn’t really there — it only exists in hindsight. That thought can be maddening to a leader. We like logic, pragmatism and reasons to point to. But change, when driven by the population, is not your change to define … it is to guide.

The reasons are the reasons, their reasons are their reasons … but as long as the change is reasonable and offers a reason to encourage … the origins have little relevance. You have to jump on board, buckle up, hold on tight and shape an arc of history, of change, which you do not instigate but want to ‘lead.’

In all of this <going back to both Kissinger & Machiavelli> I am not advocating suspending commonplace ethics as a means to achieve your ends, but I will suggest innovating and radical change is hard. It’s hard not because people don’t like change but because, more often than not, real change translates into real loss to those embracing the ‘old order.’ Humans, in general, have a strong aversion to loss and those who actually have a lot to lose … well … they have a lot stronger aversion to loss.

That means they will do their best to resist and block it.

Uhm. That includes us leaders too.

If it is revolution change, change driven by the population and not by us, we actually have the potential to lose a lot. And to grasp this opportunity you have to face your natural strong aversion to the potential loss. This is where I believe Kissinger& Machiavelli missed a point <well … they may not have missed it … their vision was always to shape and not adapt to what is being shaped>.

You cannot always control everything. Sometimes you have to choose what you will control and accept what you cannot.

And that is why I vehemently balk when Machiavelli counsels leaders to avoid the common values of justice, mercy, temperance, wisdom, and love of their people in preference to the use of cruelty, violence, fear, and deception. That is a sign of ‘control everything’ to, me …and control at any cost.

I don’t buy it. I don’t like it. And I will not do it.

While Machiavelli certainly views implementing a ‘new order’ under the guise of a realist or a pragmatist, I believe there are certain rules of engagement that must be maintained to insure an outcome that retains some purpose <and soul> beyond simple greed or personal enhancement.

 Change comes from a variety of directions. And I can almost guarantee that you, as a leader, are not the only ones facing major strategic decisions – in general and with change. You can assume all actors in the play are contemplating change & decisions <hence the embers>. And every ember is building to their fire in some fundamental way.  Deciding its place in the order of things. deciding the goals of any confrontations. Deciding its purpose. Deciding its meaning and, ultimately, deciding the meaning of their revolution and grappling with an aftermath often difficult to envision.

That is where this type of change leadership occurs.  Envisioning the aftermath of something you didn’t instigate. Envisioning your relationship to a revolution not fully settled and not fully defined.

You have to assume the responsibility of a signpost to an awakened change which is being driven by the needs & wants & desires of the general population/people. This actually means you have got to fundamentally rethink who you are as a leader as well as how you envision your role as a leader. In this case leading means envisioning where it all goes rather than having thought out where it goes <and pointing the way>.

A change agent leader responding to a desire for revolution needs shed some of the current situation where it’s appropriate and convert the embers & fire into efforts to stop the bad and force the good.

Look.

Taking the lead in the introduction of a new order of things can take on a variety of leadership vectors. One is creating & shaping and another is guiding & shaping.

We often talk about the former.

But maybe we need to talk about the latter more often.

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

Originally posted November 2015

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

“I struggle to think of anything more miserable than living a life in the wretched hollow of the in between.”

–

me

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

Ok. This is about Life and, well, having quoted myself to open this piece:

What if that is all there is?

What if life is made up primarily of the inbetween?

And what if it is actually more important than all the other shit we focus on day in and day out?

What if the in-between is the big epic holiday from Life?

——————–

For all we could and should being

In the one life that we’ve got.

Everybody says that time heals everything.

But what of the wretched hollow?

The endless in-between?

Are we just going to wait it out?

Imogene heap (Wait it Out)

——————–

Think about it. If life is a journey <not a destination>, then isn’t the completion of that thought that you are always in between? In between where you were and where you will be <or you are going>. Kind of like living Life constantly in a liminal space.

Geez. That doesn’t sound good. In fact that sounds horrible <to me>. And I imagine to people who have specific aspirations and goals and things they target as “success in life” it is even worse because I bet it sounds an awful like nonsuccess, lack of focus and wasted energy. It sounds like either not knowing where you are supposed to go <which is something that everyone is telling you is the key to happiness> or you are stuck someplace that isn’t moving toward where you want to go.

None of that sounds good. But isn’t inbetween <in this sense> about finding your way? Finding ‘home’ mentally’? Where home, in the sense of ‘where I am going’, remains elusive mentally and physically. Doesn’t it mean you are in the search for, well, whatever it is you are searching for?

That means we are all supposed to be searching <gulp> all our lives.

Ok.

That was generalization.

How about thinking about this as living inbetween on the majority of things all our lives.

Majority? Would it be okay to be in between on all the <85%> things, but ‘where you meant to be’ on the 15%? That suggests you are anchored on the important, or some, things.

Is that good?

Well. As I noted above for me that is still miserable <or at least sounds so>. Not knowing something as important as that seems like it should be in the minority of the time and not the majority <meaning it is okay to ‘not know’ for periods>.

And yet. If you have ever been to a tropical island I would suggest many of the people there live long periods of their life in between – by ‘in between’ I mean simply meandering through Life.

The majority seem to have left something behind but … well … haven’t made any decisions with regard to gaining anything more ahead <tangibly>. In my rat race words they still have not found what they are seeking.

Here is the crazy thing.

They, for the most part, are quite content.

They seem to smile more <good> and maybe bathe less <not so good>.

They may wear the same shirt a couple of days in a row … and it isn’t some fancy designer shirt.

They don’t wear socks and they seem to be in less of a hurry <but almost always seem to get places on time>.

And … well … they seem to smile more.

This all makes me think maybe it is just me. Maybe I am trapped in the American ‘can do’ or ‘should do’ attitude and missing out on what life has to offer when you spend it in the in-between.

I do know that when I am around people who are peacefully existing in the inbetween I seem to wander there into that wretched space. And it doesn’t seem so wretched then. And I wonder. Think. And then it is painful <becoming wretched again>.

Why? I want to know where I am going. I want to know what I should be doing. And I want to be doing something purposeful for someone.

Oh.

Yeah.

But they seem to smile more.

Maybe part of growing up is learning how to be comfortable in the in between and not “being successful” and “having something to show.”

Maybe.

But it seems strange to me.

It seems so far out of my natural DNA the thought of it makes me reach for another cocktail just to calm myself.

Oh.

But they seem to smile more.

I admit. When I see them smiling and they talk to me about their own in between, oddly enough, it reminds me of Alice in Wonderland:

———————-

Alice:                    “would you tell me please … which way I ought to go from here.”

Cheshire cat:     “that depends a good deal on where you want to get to.”

Alice:                    “I don’t much care.”

Cheshire Cat:     “then it doesn’t matter which way you go.”

Alice:                    “so long as I get somewhere.”

Cheshire Cat:     “oh, you’re sure to do that, if only you walk long enough.”

————————-

Look.

I imagine we all reach some crossroads in our lives. Some moments when we question where to go from here.

I am an older guy. I’m supposed to not only know where I am going but I am also supposed to be well on my way to be there <wherever or whatever ‘there’ is>.

Sometimes I feel I have visited ‘there’ already and, well, shit. It wasn’t all it was cracked up to be.

That said. Frankly, lately I wonder about what I will be “when I grow up” <which I imagine is the mature view of ‘where am I going’>. Therefore I do spend some time in that wretched hollow I call ‘the in between.’ And, yup. it is wretched to me.

All my life I have improved businesses, organizations, people and projects. And I love doing that. And I imagine along the way I have improved myself <at least one would hope that was a byproduct>.

At the moment I am doing none of those things <at least on a 100% basis which is what I am used to>.

So what happens next?

I define myself by doing. Unfortunately, in doing that it makes you think — what happens when you stop doing?

Well. I have to stop worrying about how I “did” in the past and just keep doing what I have always believed has created some ‘value’ in Life — just not in the way I used to where organizations counted on me.

Being a salaried employee is comfortable. Doing and providing value daily, if not weekly, is comfortable … at least to me. I don’t know that I am that different from the majority in this sense. Many of us, most of us I believe, like feeling productive. Heck. Most of us like BEING productive <in some form or fashion>.

It is funny. I had this discussion with someone sitting at a bar in the islands. Someone who was comfortable with the inbetween. Mostly comfortable because they defined their Life differently and, frankly, from a pragmatic standpoint had figured out a way to do something that paid the bills without the ongoing stress of where next month’s  money is going to come from.

Anyway. Lastly. Here is what I think about in-between and people and today’s culture.

Sometimes people need to be pulled out of the in-between because they do not belong there. They cannot get out on their own.

Wow. That certainly goes against all of today’s “you have to be a self starter” or “you cannot count on anyone but yourself” or “no one is going to do it for you” philosophy being expounded, and pounded, into today’s culture. I say this because I think of this the same as the slippery slope of Life. The in between, just as the slippery slope, is difficult to get off of or out of without a helping hand. This isn’t about not being strong enough or not being enough of a self starter … or not even not being qualified or ‘good enough’ at some work talent … some people just get stuck.

And some of those people are simply better at being in the game than in getting in the game.

I know I tell people to get in the game all the time. Take chances and take some uncomfortable risks. And I am not backing off of that. But there is a difference between doing that while actually in the game then when you are out seeking to get in.

For example, myself, put me in the game and I will play like every second is the last second of the game. I take calculated risks and am relatively fearless in a business environment. But I am also relatively clueless about getting in the game if I am on the sidelines. It is a different skill and a different attitude. This isn’t about avoiding anything … or avoiding choices <or inability to make the hard choices> and it is not even about being lazy; it is simply a different Life skill.

Whew.

This in-between thing can be quite wretched for many of us I imagine.

All I really know is that the conversation I had made me think and the next day at the same bar I had this scribbled on some napkins for them to read <they all bought me drinks after reading>.

I don’t share many things I write personally but try this one out as I ponder ‘what I will be’ and what I will do because I feel like I still have something to offer <professionally>.

And I am currently squarely residing in the in between.

And it is a really uncomfortable place for me.

In fact … I am relatively sure the inbetween is the wretched hollow in Life.

——-

Napkin scribblings at a bar in the Caribbean after a pain killer <or 2>. Oh. This is also probably my first published piece in that the bar owner liked it so much it is now posted behind the bar.

Here you go:

‘tomorrow I was nothing’

tomorrow I was nothing

yesterday I was no more than today

today I was believing that which is was not.

in some little place in between everything i hold on to “I believe in me.”

but

makes you wonder

if we ever reach a day

when we can discern the difference

between

that which is

what was

and what will be

and what we believe,

even in me.

so are we destined to suffocate

in the silent seconds

strewn in the wretched hollow

of the in between

where the only thing seen

are question

after question

after question

of the difference between

what is, what was and what will be.

oh, so i ask Life to wait on things

things that seem practical to the wise

as i wait

for wisdom with closed eyes

hoping all will appear on our fingertips to touch

that which is right from the wrong

and what we can feel may lie unseen in the in between

where it all becomes real

regardless

can you count the Mondays

Life thinks of calling me

and doesn’t?

because in the hollow of the in between

I know that i am you and you are me

and in the grey

in between decisions

seek the light of what is right

despite the fact you sometimes doubt that which is

and aim to the left

where darkness beckons.

in the end

departing the wretched in between

is simply what it is

and always comes back to what was.

so don’t blink

or you may you sink into the in between

of what you think

rather than what you should know

for tomorrow was nothing

and yesterday 

was holding your dreams

and today is what is.

——

<please note: I wrote the original for this in 2013 in a very pensive mood while relaxing on an island in-between – pun intended – working on business projects remotely. It is now 2018. I may still wander in the inbetween on occasion and, yes, it is still a wretched place, generally speaking, for me>

Thanks for reading <sometimes don’t think I say this enough>.

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

“The greatest illusion of this world is the illusion of separation. Things you think are separate and different are actually one and the same. We are all one people. But we live as if divided.”

—-

 The Last Airbender

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

So.

It seems like I have been talking with a lot of businesses about differentiation & distinctness. Inevitably the conversation turns to ‘brands, branding & being different.” Three painful B’s. And once that happens inevitably the conversations turns to well known brands (Apple, Amazon, Coke) and viewing all those B’s as a reflection of who & what they are.

There may be some value in that conversation but, here is the deal, unless you have worked only at “glamour brand” companies (think Nike, Coke, McDonalds, etc) you have spent an entire career making your unglamorous brand/company/service not look like a commodity (because pretty much all non-glamour brands all get thrown into some confused perception/awareness cluster).

Oh.  By the way.

Even ‘glamour’ brands struggle with differentiation (or not dropping into a functional commodity status) in the b2b market (see Kodak, IBM, etc.  as prime examples).

So. Unless you have worked on a glamour brand where people line up to show your logo somewhere on their body you have had to become an expert in the decommoditization business.

—————————————

decommoditization:

Meaningful differentiation is difficult.  It is more than features & benefits and it is absolutely more than sheer ‘puffery’ <the claim that we are unique and everyone will beat a path to our door>.

This is truly the challenge of what a really smart guy named Hugh McLeod calls ‘decommoditization.’ Most businesses simply begin from the wrong place. They either seek ‘white space’ in the competitive environment or they believe they are different and set out to tell the world about it.

That is good old school ideology.

But it is bad because it is old thinking.

In today’s more cynical world the mind’s perception map assumes everyone is equal until proven otherwise.

Every day a business is decommoditizing itself or it is slipping down the slippery slope to commodity.

Unless your business is lean hogs, rough rice, natural gas or soybeans <all commodity futures you can invest in> you better have your head focused on decommoditizing.

Bruce McTague

—————————

I know I have on my resume (somewhere) something like “an ability to differentiate in commodity like categories.”

What do I mean by ‘commodity-like’? Think banking, grocery stores, department stores, pest control, motor oil, eye drops, pretty much any P&G product you can think of, healthcare, cellular.

(all industries of which I have worked in).

Well. Okay. That said. In today’s internet world and an endless depth of available information at everyone’s fingertips, where everyone is someone’s competition for expectations, almost everyone is in a commodity like category.

On a separate note. Other than a happy few this also summarizes almost the entire b2b category. Everyone fighting themselves out of the ‘lowest cost provider’ status into ‘great value’ (which by the way is ‘brand’) status.

It doesn’t sound glamorous, but I haven’t been in the branding business or the marketing business or whatever strategy business someone wants to call it. I have been in the decommoditization business. In fact. Anyone who says something like that in an interview? Hire them. And hire them now.

Anyway.

My view is in today’s world the moment you stop and rest on the thought you are a ‘brand’ and have added value in someone’s mind (b2b or consumer) you are screwed. Every minute you do nothing you slip backwards toward commodity.

Hugh MacLeod did the cartoon to the right and I laughed when I first saw it because, while I don’t know him personally, he used almost the exact same words I/we used in a new business presentation to a state tourism business in the late 90’s (and then used over and over again with retail and commodity-like businesses).

It’s not just advertising. It’s relevant to all business.

If you own a business or selling anything to anyone, life isn’t top down (brand to product). Life is down to up – product to brand (constantly seeking to insure your head is above the commodity water).

Does that sound defensive? God. I hope not.  It’s just smart. It doesn’t mean you aren’t on the offensive and building value and thinking long term, it simply means you have a practical objective – I don’t want to be a damn commodity.

Anyway.

Meaningful differentiation is hard, REALLY hard. I believe businesses would find it easier if they focused less on brand and more on decommoditizing (which inherently is about value creation).

————————–

“Forget words like ‘hard sell’ and ‘soft sell.’

That will only confuse you.

Just be sure your advertising is saying something with substance, something that will inform and serve the consumer, and be sure you’re saying it like it’s never been said before.” 

=

David Ogilvy

——————— 

“If you try to comprehend air before breathing it, you will die.”

=

Mark Nepo

—————

“Seeking truth is a full time job.  Communicating truth is a purpose in Life.

Embrace that truth and your Life will be significantly more complicated, but significantly more rewarding.”

=

Bruce McTague

——————–

Well. Communicating has always been a tough gig, but in today’s world it has taken on an increased challenge.

I scan headlines in magazines and online and I cannot see one topic being discussed, one industry or any one group of influential type people that isn’t under attack by ‘lack of trust’ or, in other words, ‘liars.’

What that means is anything you are communicating isn’t starting from a commodity standpoint <all facts and truths are created equal>, but rather you are already in a hole trying to climb out of ‘prove to me this is not a lie.’

Think about that if you work in marketing, advertising or any brand type position. Think about that REALLY hard.

Truth has never had a more difficult challenge than today. This may sound odd because common sense suggests truth is truth and, unvarnished, stands clear of any and all clutter as … well … truth. Unfortunately that is not … well … true.

Truth, more often than not, is a wallflower and not the one breakdancing in the middle of the room. The schlub doing the crazy dance alone, being watched by everyone, is more likely a lie or a semi/partial truth. You have to coax truth to the dance floor. Someone has to bring it out into the audience and permit it to be seen.

To be honest, Truth telling is hard work. It is not for the faint of heart. Seeking truth is a full time job <which most people, frankly, just do not have the time to do as they do their paid full time job>. And communicating truth has to be a purpose in one’s life in order to meet the onslaught of untruths, purposeful ignorance, unintended ignorance, semi-truths and  cynicism.

To be clear.

I do not believe we are in some ‘post truth world.’ Nor do I believe what someone said “there are no facts anymore.”

Facts are facts and truth is truth. There may be some confusion around this but, of all industries, advertising and marketing communications people had sure as shit better be fucking clear on this or they are in deep shit.

While I believe business, in general, benefits if they start on day one embracing the thought they are in the decommoditization business <rather than in the ‘uniqueness business’> I believe communications would benefit by embracing the thought they are in the ‘establishing truths’ business.

Look <part 1>.

Advertising, marketing and all of professional communications is in a challenging position. Challenging in that businesses spend money on marketing & advertising most typically to sell shit. Therefore its main goal is to, well, sell shit. This means that if I represent a product and its main buying audience is white, male & blue collar <or pick any demographically based segment> I am going to use imagery and words that will appeal to them <sometimes to the detriment to other audiences who are less likely to buy your shit>.

Now. Of course you want to do it with style and substance and some sense of responsibility <not be stupid>. So any advertising person with any chops <any good> will figure out a way of not doing the stupid shit to sell shit. Even then your audience is your audience and while we would like to suggest everything is made to be created with a larger purpose of ‘bettering the world’ to a business who only has maybe $1000 to market something <or some finite budget amount> that $1000 is spent on selling shit and not ‘bettering the world.’

Simplistically, you sell to the people who will buy or have bought.

Simplistically, you sell to those people who will buy in the most effective way so that they will actually buy.

I say that because someone on the outside looking in can take apart imagery & words and make some very valid points with regard to the kinds of messages they send, but marketing people & advertising people are under a lot of pressure to sell shit. And, remember, they are in the service business. They ultimately do not do anything but ‘strategically create persuasive creations’ and a business makes the decision on whether what they create will actually be produced and put in front of people. Here is where the communications folk can get a little sideways. They focus on imagery & words & ‘attention’ with the intent to gain interest — not specifically sell shit. Sometimes they ignore truth as too complicated & too complex. Now. It is quite possible we communications folk may have gotten away with that in the past, but in today’s world, sure as shit, you better be grounded in hard, clear truth or you are gonna get screwed.

Look <part 2>.

In the good ole days truth was appreciated, but aspirational sold.

Well. That was before we all got a good dose of cynicism and started drinking from the fountain of untruths.

Messages are everywhere and simply suggesting you were offering truth because “you consumers are too clever to fall for manipulation” gave people permission to at least think you were offering truth.

No more my friends.

While aspirational drives value, lack of truth suffocates value into nothingness. This doesn’t mean there will not be a boatload of products and services who make a sale standing on the superficial surface of irrelevant, but appealing, value. But that will be the geography populated by the hacks.

This truth thing may not be a battle which some people want to fight. And that is okay. But someone has to or the entire industry will become irrelevant. If no one tells the truth, why would I listen to anyone?

I, personally, am not suggesting ditching aspirational but I am suggesting that truth, communicating the truth in a away that people actually believe it is true, is the key to future success.

Look <part 3>

I have worked in and out of the marketing and advertising business for <yikes> over 30 years so I feel like I have some qualifications to comment on the industry. Everyone on the outside of the advertising business looking in thinks those creating the advertising think about shit that, truthfully, advertising people actually never waste their time thinking about. And everyone inside the advertising business thinks about more shit than people outside the advertising could ever imagine they think about.

Suffice it to say I could gather up examples of advertising, using material over 20 years, and make pretty much any point I want to make – good, bad, absurd, true, untrue, semitruthful, smart, insightful or blatantly uninsightful.

Anyway. Here is a communications truth — perception is not reality. The perception is that advertising makes shit up, makes stupid vapid shit and says nothing <as much as possible> and if they do say something it is a lie and, ultimately, they try and make people feel something <to sell>.

Nothing could be further from the truth <that is, of course, with the non hacks>.

The problem in advertising typically arises when the ad creators struggle to articulate the benefit <or convince themselves that it is ‘non differentiating’ and then seek to ‘differentiate’ in some absurd form or fashion>. It then can unravel from there because the ‘go-to’ phrase at this point in time is ‘do something brave’ or ‘entertaining’ or ‘edgy’ <notice nowhere in there is “smart, insightful, thoughtful, truth”>.

Sure. Great advertising messaging always is, and will be, imbued with some sense of courage.

Why?

Because if you want to be distinct you will not please everyone.

Because if you want to tell the truth you will not please everyone.

The hack advertising people use the ‘do something brave’ phrase indiscriminately to justify bad advertising.

The good advertising people use this phrase to do something smart in order to not be different but stand ABOVE everyone else.

Yup. Huge difference.

Hacks say ‘stand apart.’

Non hacks say ‘stand above.’

This is where I imagine articles about advertising should focus their attention on. Why doesn’t the advertising stand above <and not be below what is good & right & untrue>.

Advertising should be smart and not talk down to people but actually enable them to rise up to the occasion and FEEL like they are rising up to engage with that brand or company.

Communications should be truthful, regardless whether it is simple or complex, and enable people to be able to FEEL truth in such a way that doubts about that brand or company are swept away.

And it all has to be done with an eye toward ‘decommoditizing’ or being distinct in some meaningful way <because truth, in and of itself, is not a differentiator>.

Advertising cannot be dull and uninspired, oh, and you cannot use a small budget as an excuse. In fact the truth is that a limited budget is typically what drives innovative advertising.

Yup. Inspired smart creativity tends to make each dollar be more effective <hence you can live with a smaller budget>.

In other words a smart, insightful, relevant, entertaining ad will be more memorable than a typical ‘category using sacred cow imagery’ ad therefore it needs to be seen less for the same effect.

Oh. And if you add in ‘truth’ <in a way in which you aren’t just communicating it but people actually BELIEVE it>, your communications is more memorable, more believable, can be seen less for the same effect … and is, of course, of higher value.

By the way, smart means not any obvious photoshopping or any exaggerated ridiculous claims or just plain inaccurate information or anything fluffed up or untrue.

By the way, smart means avoiding stereotypes, typecasting and idiotic generalizations and lies.

Note to advertising people:

We can see through those slimy tactics. Realize consumers are people … people who are smart and informed.

Make me aware of a product.

Educate me.

Relate to me.

Tell me the Truth.

 

Regardless. 

 ===

“A dull truth will not be looked at.  An exciting lie will.  That is what good, sincere people must understand. They must make their truth exciting and new, or their good works will be born dead.”

Bill Bernbach

——-

Truth is truth.

Lies are lies.

Responsibility is responsibility.

If you do not accept your responsibility to tell the truth as excitingly and convincingly as you possibly can, lies will win.

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.

I honestly do not despair when I look at business in today’s world or even marketing & advertising behavior.

I get aggravated.

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

What professional communicators do matters.

Selling stuff only matters as a means to an end. 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 brutalizing society in some form or fashion – in this case and in this time and place … it would be truth we are brutalizing.

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 or 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.

In the end.

I will not argue that all advertising is good.

I will not argue that all professional communications is good.

A lot of it is shit.

But I will argue that good communications & advertising people, not hacks, are smart and tend to create smart insightful educating communication pieces that avoid the trite and stereotyping imagery and focus on telling the truth, if not A real truth, rather than lie or some semi truth.

I would also argue that good communications & advertising people, not hacks, have the opportunity to save truth in today’s society.

Anyway. I think many of the world’s institutions are embattled but the one that concerns me the most is Truth. The institution of truth is under siege.

I can honestly say I don’t think most who are attacking truth are trying to facilitate its downfall most are simply unclear what is truth and what is not. I believe anyone in any position of influence should be proactively assuming the burdensome responsibility of telling and protecting truth <that will come at an expense> but, today, I think the professional communications industry should be at the forefront of the battle.

Why? They get paid to communicate. If they cannot figure out how to effectively communicate truth, who can?

They must must make their truth exciting and new, or their good works will be born dead. Uhm. And lies will win.

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

About the author:

I am a 50something who believes my generation hollowed out Truth by simplistically suggesting truth was best told through simplicity.

Truth is neither simple nor hollow.

I have had one framed picture in my office since maybe 2000: Seek Truth.

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

 

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

I’m not sure why you’re so angry at us. We haven’t been around as long as I assume you have been around.

You’ve been voting a lot longer than any of us. You’ve had a say in how our culture and society and economy and political system have been shaped. The state of affairs Sanders is describing has been evolving over several decades. Surely the great wisdom you possess saw most of this coming, the income inequality, the wars for profit, etc. Could it be that we’re easy to rage against because we’re younger and poorer and more vulnerable than you? Could it be that you should be raging against the person you see in the mirror every morning and the generation you associate with every day, but it’s too hard to face the misdeeds of your age group, so you project blame onto us?

—-

A Millennial commenting online

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

“… whether you know it or not, you’re offspring are already screwed and it not because of Trump.

Lets be honest here… The kids are 20+ trillion dollars in debt. No middle class left. No economic growth. No jobs. A country infiltrated by illegal aliens. Murder rates skyrocketing. Our infrastructure is decimated. Islamic extremist threaten us daily. Russia and China flexing their military muscle and North Korea and Iran on the verge of nuclear weaponry.

And you’re worried about Trump becoming president.

When I see posts such as yours I think to myself how in the world with all the news sources at everyone finger tips can people be so blind to what is right in front of them. Ignorance is a bigger threat to us than Trump can ever be.”

—-

a white Boomer commenting online

========

Carlo Rosselli:

“I had a house: they destroyed it. I had a magazine: they suppressed it. I had ideas, dignity, an ideal: for these I was sent to prison. I had friends: they killed them.”

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

I am a white guy.

An old white guy.

I don’t loathe being white and I certainly don’t believe simply being white makes one an evil person and it certainly doesn’t increase your odds of being ‘gooder’ or ‘badder’ simply because the color of your skin.

But sometimes, okay, more often than not, I write with some sense of disdain for the older generation of white guys <particularly in business> because we seem to be, or at least becoming, an angry generation.

Angry at the naïve young people.

Angry at some ill-defined establishment <or institution aligned against us>.

Angry at minorities <who appear to be getting a better break than us>.

Angry at women <who used to be more supportive of us>.

Angry at other countries <because, dammit, we are the best and if they improve we don’t look at ‘best’>.

Angry at change.

Angry at no change.

Shit. We are just angry enough at the world we will take selective bits of misinformation and get so angry we start getting angry at a world that just isn’t as bad as we are angry about.

But what is most concerning is that this anger is beginning to extend like a big amorphous blob in every direction. In other words … we are just angry people in an angry world looking for anyone and everywhere to focus our anger.

—

“I cannot be angry with you. Anger would be a waste of the moments we have and would make us weak in the face of the things yet to do.”

—

Some of this amorphous blob-like anger is explainable.

It CAN be easy to feel marginalized when looking back at the past.

It can be easy to feel less respected when looking back at the past.

It can be easy to feel like everything was better when looking back at the past.

It can be easy to remember a country that wasn’t obese, a country that did not struggle to educate the young or even a country in which there seemed to be an extreme demand for guns for everyone.

Yeah. I could point out, as an old white guy, what I call the silent minority <because they seem to be REALLY angry>. This silent minority is a slice of white America who has watched from the stagnant sidelines of Life as initiative after initiative is created to ‘right the wrongs’ of the past for women, the LBGT community, the blacks, Asians and … well … anyone non-white.

It may sound disingenuous to suggest this is a legitimate concern when white Americans currently have a majority-minority relationship in the country. But this is a real minority within the majority who has real anger <or maybe strong frustrations> all compounded by some fear/anger mongerers who encourage a sense that “real Americans” are being crowded out.

This anger creates a critique of everyone and everything all threaded through with an unhealthy thread of paranoia driven conjecture driven theories.

That said. It sure does seem like everyone is angry and angry about something or someone.

Well. Okay. The uber rich people aren’t angry … they just don’t care.

But everyone else is.

The aspiring uber rich people are angry at the ‘lazy entitled lower income’ who want money they haven’t earned.

The middle <& going down> income are people angry at everyone.

The lower middle <who are probably hard working & pragmatic but have always had hope to be & do better> people are angry at the aspiring uber & uber.

The lower income people are just angry <because while they don’t see the poor social mobility numbers that I do which state that America is not the land of opportunity … they already know that if they are born lower income they will most likely live & die in lower income>.

And all incomes people are angry at government.

Heck. People are angry at work.

They don’t feel secure in their jobs on top of they are losing hope they will have opportunities to move up on top of the fact it sometimes seems like charisma <and what is being called ‘instincts’> is being valued more than actually knowing what to do <and rational logical thinking>. Therefore those with ability <or the ability to enhance their ability> but don’t meet the charisma criteria <gift of gab, appearance, etc.> or don’t value the charisma thing themselves <they just want to get shit done> … lose hope. And get angry.

In addition. We older folk feel some anger as it seems like the workplace is outplacing us, and our skills, faster than ever before. Workplace generation gaps used to pit older veterans against young rookies but now it is a weird digital driven world, where thinking and deductive skills seem to have less value, and generation gaps in the workplace give a lot of people the sense that they are falling behind and must struggle to avoid being left out.

People are angry at home.

Home values <most homes major investment> struggle. There is uncertainty with the economy on top of uncertainty with time … people work hard to manage time and yet there never seems to be enough of it. We are angry about lack of money, lack of time and lack of perceived control over our own Life.

People are angry because our hope is being fucked with <hope for a better life & hope for better fairness>.

People are happy in life when they think it’s fair … or they get a fair chance. “I don’t need to get to the top … or be the best … or even get the most … I just want to know that I had the opportunity to do so IF I had really been the best or the top or deserved the most.”  Most of us realize we are not ‘the best’ or the ‘cream of the crop’ … we are just average Joes & Joettes <everyday schmucks>.

And you know what? Most people, like me, are not angry about being an everyday schmuck <we are okay with it> but we do want to feel like that if by some miracle we were the best, if but for one critical moment, that we would get the opportunity to get what the best get.

Alternatively … if we see few glimpses of opportunity … well … we get angry.

This may be unrealistic <because it is just a ‘what if’ scenario>? But opportunity & hope are fickle funny things. And pretty valuable to us average everyday schmucks.

People are angry at Life.

While Life has always seemed to never miss an opportunity to screw with you … at least in the past it seemed like Life was fair <it took away and gave>.

People have a larger sense of anger.

This is more about a situation in which they feel like they have little or no control over and cannot do anything about.  This creates an anger focus in that we start looking for someone and anyone to blame for whatever it is that is making us angry <I would argue the foundation of all his anger is that we are having our hopes and dreams screwed with>.

People are angry because optimism seems to be in the purview of only the naive fools.

We get angry because optimism is a conscious belief … almost an ideology if you elect to be. It has a tangible cognitive attachment to it … almost an expectation of what will be. if we perceive someone placing obstacles in between our optimistic thinking and the tangible cognitive attachment … well … we get fucking angry.

People are angry as they teeter between an anger that we are currently faced with the tragic ongoing horror show of President Trump ‘as a cut price Mussolini and demigod of the intellectually challenged’ and an anger that President Trump, the self-proclaimed change agent, has become mired in his own self proclaimed swamp.

People are angry that the US now consists of a shitload of small towns with shuttered shops, high unemployment in selective geography, low wages, increasing dependency on government support, free food, soup kitchens. Fifty million below the poverty line. Tens of millions without health insurance and those with coverage, struggling to pay their premiums … and 50% of Americans cannot even afford a vacation.

People are angry that the shining light of democracy is quickly taking on the appearance of a kind of banana republic … or a well developed “Somalia with guns, hamburgers, obesity and better drainage.”

As for me? While I was not a huge Clinton fan I get a little angry that a Hillary Clinton message grounded in “love, togetherness and kindness” was trumped by some asshat talking about “destruction, despair and winning is all that matters” — an asshat who publicly stated at a podium in front of a crowd of cheering people that he had no idea what Clinton meant by wanting to make America whole again.

All that said.

We are an angry people in an angry world.

Anger sometimes makes us cling to obvious untruths rather than face the truth — about ourselves, about society, about reality — and therefore we ignore the real truths which would lead to the well needed fundamental difficult changes necessary to diminish our anger.

Personally, I believe 99% of anger is wasted energy.

However. On occasion, anger, if causing some self-refection, can create a sense of reflective responsibility, i.e., what have I done to create his environment of anger? Is there is a real issue that has been raised … and needs to be addressed?

We are an angry group these days and, yet, we seem to remain at least minimally functional. The term “new normal” or “normalizing the current attitude” gets thrown around a lot these days. So much so that it just seems normal <or maybe we just cannot define abnormal well enough to deal with it>. And that is what concerns me as I reflect as an old white guy — functioning in an angry world as the new normal. We have mastered functional anger.

Look. People have legitimate reason to be angry, but we also have legitimate reasons to assume some personal responsibility for the legitimate parts as well as legitimate fundamental changes to solve our legitimate anger.

I will end this by suggesting anger is most often driven by a clash of ideas — even if you want to argue there is rampant ignorance <you can still have ideas even if you are ignorant>. A country is always wracked by conflict where the discussion can be raucous, or whispered, at different times in history, but it resides in all times nonetheless.

I would point out America is constantly morphing. The clash of ideas is actually what makes America great. Its lack of simplicity is what makes it great. Therefore it is actually the constant conflict that makes it great.

Think of the country as a number of tectonic plates constantly shifting and crashing into each other with earthquakes and trembles and ultimately soaring mountain ranges … and sinking islands. Those tectonic plates are the fractured sections of class, culture, race, income levels, social status, generational norms, educational attainment and, well, even individual state identity.

But possibly the largest tectonic civilization plates are what was, what is & what will be. The tectonic plates of time and everything that resides upon them … the mountain ranges of attitudes & desires and the valleys of “what I have and what I believe is mine to keep” <the latter can be material or mental>.

Anger is only good if it creates some change. I worry that we are, well, just angry and not using that anger for anything other than just being angry. We should admit to our anger, admit it is an angry world, and we should be using this anger to solve the anger.

——

“I know you can be underwhelmed and overwhelmed, but can you ever just be ‘whelmed’?”

=

10 things I hate about you

——–

“I am overflowing with words I do not have.”

—

Adam Falkner

====

“Aiming at brevity, I become obscure.”

–

Horace

====

So. This is about brevity and powerpoint <and, yes, I do believe powerpoint, when used well, is an effective communication tool>. Regardless. Is it possible to love brevity and the use of prose? If so, it is I that does so.

I wanted to share that thought before I said this: the concept of brevity has been bastardized in today’s world – especially in business. More specifically, it has absolutely destroyed the effective use of power point and, in general, communication in business.

Brevity just for the sake of brevity is … well … bad.

Note: I read somewhere that the average English word has just five letters <by the way, short is a 5 letter word>.

Brevity, when used well, provides the spark for ideas, energy, action and the space to say & do more things.

Brevity, when used poorly, creates confusion, lack of clarity, obscurity and inevitably … lack of progress.

I loved it when I read Brigadier General McMaster, US military, suggested that the brevity-driven powerpoint presentation in the military is an “internal threat.” Why does he believe that?

“It’s dangerous because it can create the illusion of understanding and the illusion of control.

Some problems are not bullet-izable.”

<amen>

And, yet, day in and day out everything in business has to be delivered as an ‘elevator speech’ or ‘a defining visual’ or, well, as few words as possible. While this sounds great … it is crazy. Business, in general, is staggeringly complex. The complexity with which successful businesses are successful can be staggering to someone who has never been involved in the typical business decision. Little things are rarely little. And little words may look little but, well, they are anything but a reflection of non-little things.

—-

“The little things? The little moments? — They aren’t little. “

John Zabat-Zinn

—–

To be clear. This doesn’t mean going thru the rigor of tightening, focus and conciseness isn’t valuable … it is just that simply relying on ‘brevity’ is … well … creating an illusion rather than depicting reality. I would much rather we focus on getting the ‘largest amount of truth into the briefest space’ <paraphrased from Beecher> than simplistic brevity.

Brevity, well used, can like be like a knife.

Oops. I didn’t say what kind of knife did I? A scalpel? A butcher knife? A butter knife?

Brevity, more often than not, actually creates ambiguity. It leaves spaces which someone other than you fill. And they fill it with whatever THEY think which is not necessarily what is intended.

—— 

“Ambiguity of language is philosophy’s main source of problems.

That is why it is of the utmost importance to examine attentively the very words we use.”  

===

Giuseppe Peano  

—–

And we wonder why it seems so often there is a lack of alignment between what we said and what was heard?

Shit. It’s not that most business people suck at communicating because, honestly, most experienced business people given the right forum and the proper amount of time are actually very good at articulating whatever it is they want to communicate. It is when forced into a ‘brevity-driven format’ that communication starts breaking down.

The people who can truly communicate well thru brevity is a very limited number — think maybe fingers on a hand. You can most likely find them at large conferences, TED presentations or on YouTube.

And we all want to emulate them.

And we all cannot.

I do not dislike the intent behind seeking brevity I just dislike much of the brevity output. While I love brevity I know that is neither my strength nor is it my ‘gig.’ I revel in the nuance and can be wonky at times. Therefore I seek balance. If in PowerPoint … I tend to alternate pages … one so brief it looks stark followed by a page which breaks the starkness into its beautiful fragmented complexity … only to shift to a starkly brief next page. This is what I try to do although I cannot claim success every time.

But. In the attempt I find I at least get closer to it than simply bludgeoning people with thoughts & words.

I dream of being able to communicate thru brevity.

If you doubt that just look at the very limited list of sites I link to on my site, each and every one of them is a vivid example of brevity.

Storypeople.com, gapingvoid.com deliver irreverent brilliant short satisfaction span brevity thoughts>. They say some really smart things. And in a way that makes you sometimes scratch your head. And sometimes laugh <while crying inside having lived through a version of it>.

I aspire to brevity in brilliance. But, alas, at my age I believe I am doomed to ramble. So I will live brevity vicariously through the ones who are truly good at it.

Look. I fully understand why we have this almost unhealthy pursuit of brevity — because most of us <myself included> waste the shit out of words.

—

“As humans, we waste the shit out of our words. It’s sad. We use words like awesome and wonderful like they’re candy.

It was awesome? Really? It inspired awe? It was wonderful? Are you serious? It was full of wonder?

You use the word amazing to describe a goddamn sandwich at Wendy’s. What’s going to happen on your wedding day, or when your first child is born? How will you describe it? You already wasted amazing on a fucking sandwich. “

Louis C.K

====

All I can really say is that we all want brevity … but we do not always need it. Maybe all we can do is … well … in the pursuit of brevity you should savor ever word because if it has no taste than you should not serve it. In the end, brevity is really nothing more, or nothing less, than stripping away the unnecessary and focusing on the necessary.

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

“One does not set out to catch a panther with a mousetrap.”

–

Sean Flannery

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

Ok.

This is partially about businesses and business thinking, partially about marketing, but totally about risk and refinding your ‘mojo’ in business. Risk is always an interesting topic when discussing business. But add in the topic of marketing it takes on aspects I not only believe we do not discuss enough, but there are so many varieties of risk to consider almost every day it could make your head spin.

Let me focus on what I would consider the big two:

There is risk of doing the right thing <or choosing what to do>.

And then there is risk that it will actually work.

Say what?

Too many people in marketing <and business in general I imagine> forget to realize that everything we do <day in and day out> can matter and should be focused on doing the right thing. Why? Because, in the end, marketing is not just about persuasion.

It’s about the stories we tell and how they connect with real people and what those real people do with those stories. Those stories compel people to do things and mostly compels them to take a risk either in believing you, believing in you or believing they should do something.

Interestingly … while we use those words, believing & risk, with marketing all the time they can also be used with businesses. Huh? Business owners are fooling themselves if they simply believe they are a manufacturing firm or a service company or a “I sell shit want to sell more shit’ company. Business is about persuading someone to take a risk on you <and your business>.

Honestly, the best persuasion to take a risk is almost a whisper in your ear … so faint you barely know it’s there. There is an art of being noticed without, well, being noticeable. It is an art and science because you do want to be noticed just without being noticeable. Whoa. There is a challenge, huh?

How challenging? Things don’t always go smoothly.

Why?

Well. Beyond the fact the people doing the persuading are doing a lot of things that suck & are obnoxious <and don’t persuade> the real issue is that businesses are not taking any risks. No risks on a variety of levels <because relaxing and settling back and being noticed without being noticeable not only takes some kahones but is also taking a risk>.

Yet. They are asking people to take a risk on them and their products.

So. We <in business> are less willing these days to show any risk but demand the opposite <and some blind faith to go along with it> of consumers/buyers/users.

How fair is that? Is there any wonder trust is at an all-time low?

Someone once said, and I believe, that if you don’t risk anything, you risk everything. It’s certainly true on a personal level, and in the communications business, or business in general, it is actually the only way to grow and be successful. The problem is that most businesses operate more by intimidation than inspired insightful risk. Trying the new and different and taking risks gets squeezed out by a let’s-play-it-safe attitude. Taking some risk in sharing who you are & how you really feel <some ‘experts’ call this authenticity I just call it “being yourself”> gets scary and conversations inevitably ease you into the more comfortable “lets play it safe” attitude.

I have one word for you … Vanilla. Vanilla because behaviorally this inevitably leads to business without true meaningful convictions without any real taste to it and a business that follows rather than leads. Leading demands not only having convictions but also risking your proverbial neck by sharing those convictions.

Oh. By the way. A business operating without convictions won’t sell anything. I say this to suggest that we in business begin to refind risk. To refind their risk mojo. I know this is a difficult suggestion. It is always much better to do the sure thing. The safe business decision. The problem is if you really want any progress or growth … meaningful progress and growth … risk cannot be avoided.

Ok. To be clear on ‘meaningful progress and growth’; greater sales results more economically achieved. Notice nowhere so far I have said anything about creative marketing nor have I discussed brands or branding. I have not because creativity is far too often been used inaccurately, irresponsibly and exploited through deliberate misrepresentation by some relatively unscrupulous pontificators trying to make a buck here and there.

Even worse? As all the buzzwords buzz around some good, honest talented businesspeople <with true convictions> have gotten wrapped up in the snake oil salesman speak. That’s unfortunate, because when understood and properly practiced, creativity does result in greater sales more economically achieved.

Properly practiced, creativity can do wonderful things in business … it can create new ways of doing things that make a business more economical <but still effective>, create new products and innovations … and in advertising … make one piece of communication do the work of a dozen which are playing it safe.

Properly done creativity can lift your claims out of the swamp of sameness and make them accepted, believed, persuasive, urgent and distinct in the minds of people.

Trust me. Simple facts you discuss around the boardroom table come alive in fresh, memorable and persuasive ways. Being creative is good business. It compels people to think about and try products & services. At it’s best … it makes your business get noticed without being noticeable.

The real question everyone has to ask is why everyone isn’t doing it.

Answer? Because it involves risk.

Uh oh. That nasty risk is … well … sly.

Despite how many people have tried to create a ‘process for implementing effective creativity’ … it cannot be done. There are boatloads of ‘experts’ who work by and extol magical formulas to limit risk and enhance creativity.

They know and have all the rules in their pocket <or wallets>.

They can pound away <and chip away> with fact after fact after fact.

They are the mad scientists of creativity selling a formula to eliminate <or limit> risk under the guise of ‘how to be effectively creative.’

Well. That is bullshit.

“Persuasion happens to be an art, not a science” said the inimitable Bill Bernbach.

There is no scientist who can tell you how to create an idea. As someone wrote once … ‘they can build the body, but they cannot send the blood coursing through the veins.’ The great insight or imagination or intuition that breaks the rules and makes meaningful progress doesn’t come from a formula or from something tried and true.

The biggest business rewards are in the untried … the new.

Oh.

Yeah.

That’s right.

As a corollary.

The biggest failures <costs> reside in the untried and new.

Well. As Bernbach also said “safe marketing is the riskiest marketing you can do.”  I would change it to simply say … ‘safe business is the riskiest business you can do.’ Today’s world offers an almost overwhelming amount of choices and pieces of information and businesses offering almost indiscernible offerings.

Yet. Just to insure I don’t lose sight of the issue, if you speak with any business anywhere at any time they will certainly perceive they are distinct and discernible <and in some cases will actually be different and be discernible>.

Originality is a real thing, a challenging thing, and a risky thing. And to be truly original … in some ways … you must ignore what exists and what has been done before. You must abandon the safe and secure.

I would note all great ideas have two things in common.

–          It’s effective

–          It’s always preceded by a meeting in which you will hear ‘are you nuts?’

Well.

Maybe we all need to be a little more nuts.

Maybe we all need to be a little less afraid of the different.

Maybe instead we should focus on what I believe almost all business people really do know … the new and untried can generate the big gains.

We shouldn’t just talk about seeking the exceptional we should actually do the exceptional.

Ah. The root of that word ‘exceptional? The exception.

<please note … that is a significantly different word than acceptable … or safe …>

We are comfortable in our cocoon of what is acceptable and sameness but it is risk that truly pays off. If you have nothing to offer but used ideas than you are simply a used car salesman. And does anyone in business really want to be that? <unless they are in that business of course>

Take the risk of being yourself. Each business has their own style and own way of thinking and, in many cases, their own way of doing things. I imagine I could simply suggest that each business has ownable attitudes and behaviors. They have an inner soul that is theirs.

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

“Do not let your soul be lazy.”

Nikolai Zabolotsky

==========

To end on a more philosophical note.

It is our innate desire to grow, to explore, and to be creative.

Yet many business souls have become caged by fear and doubt and insecurity. Rather than embrace change and uncertainty with poise and confidence these business souls have become inactive. I have met the enemy and it is I.

Maybe a way to do what I am suggesting is to rather than resist what is, we accept it, feel it, examine it, learn from it, and then let it go.

Instead. We seem to only see that when we fight against that which is <the safe> … it only seems to make that which we are fighting against stronger <safer seems even safer>.

Push back invites push back. In the end rationalization and defensiveness wins, obstructs progress, and attaches you to what appears safe and comfortable.

Do not allow your soul to be lazy. Refinding your risk muscle is really all about refinding some semblance of a sense of fearlessness and your peak productivity where peak is accessed by shedding all the non essential crap holding you back from going forward. Refinding risk is about insuring your business soul is not lazy.

The essence of business is risk. The essence of being and your soul is risk.

The day business ceases to take risks is the day it ceases to be a business.

Well.

Either that day … or some day in the future … that’s for sure.

I believe all businesses should seek to refind the business mojo that gives them an edge in the marketplace. That will mean … uhm … refinding your risk muscle.