<as we near a New Year, 2019, I thought I would republish my 2016 New year’s Eve piece because it still seems relevant and the messages still sound>

====

President-elect Donald Trump’s unusual New Year’s message via Twitter on 12/31/16:

“Happy New Year to all, including to my many enemies and those who have fought me and lost so badly they just don’t know what to do. Love!”

=====

“Sportsmanship for me is when a guy walks off the court and you really can’t tell whether he won or lost, when he carries himself with pride either way.”

–

Jim Courier

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

The Olympic motto:

“The important thing in the Games is not winning but taking part.

The essential thing is not conquering but fighting well.”

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

Well. Trump is going to remind us all of a lot of shit we want to teach our children <by reminding us of what we don’t want them to do and be>. Yeah. How scary is that?

We shake our heads at a 70 year old man over something we wouldn’t even want our 15 year old to do.

Today? Being a bad winner <and how good leaders are never bad winners>.

So. We all know what a bad loser is, but maybe we should actually talk more about what a bad winner is. That may sound strange because … well … I mean, c’mon, who would have thought someone who wins would need a lesson on how to actually be a winner.

Uhm. And who would have thought we would have to teach someone this lesson, especially someone who would be in a position to run a large organization let alone a country.

Uhm. Could you imagine a new CEO of a company who just beat out a rival in an organization for a promotion tweeting this out to all their employees? <no … no sane person could>.

Trump has a problem <okay … several> but this tweet reflects a lack of understanding on how to be a leader, how to be a good winner and that there is a difference between competitiveness mentality and a “win at all cost” mentality.

Competitors compete, compete hard, and accept the win or the loss … warts & all. Sometimes we competitors know we got a little lucky, maybe the chips fell our way because we worked hard & practiced hard, but recognize that even then the chips could have fallen the other way.

Built into our competitiveness is a belief we should win, but that on any given day we could lose.

This type of competitiveness tends to reflect itself in being a ‘good winner’ attitudinally. A little humility. A little respect for the competition. And, unless the competitor was a total asshole, an understanding that they may have lost, but they were not losers.

Someone who has to lead an organization and wants to be successful embraces this attitude.

Now. A ‘win at all costs’ mentality is a double edged bad sword.

Not only do you compete differently <rules are more suggestions than restrictions>, but your wins are an unblemished unassailable win in your mind.

Black and white – I won, you lost.

No warts. No maybes. No ‘it was close.’ Only ‘win.’

This type of competitiveness tends to not reflect upon the competition itself and that maybe, just maybe, your competition is worthy of being your friend or respected acquaintance not as a ‘loser’ but rather ‘someone with the same intent.’ This type of competitiveness rarely reflects any version of sportsmanship.

Someone who has to lead an organization and embraces this attitude does not foster a healthy culture, does not encourage unity but rather incites cut throat aggressive competitiveness, cliques and divisiveness <and a shit load of brown nosing>.

The latter is Trump. And his New Year ’s Eve tweet tells us this. Trump reflects the worst type of lesson as a leader and as a role model.

And I don’t need Trump to make this point. Watch or read the news and you will read day after day incidents displaying the loss of sportsmanship and respect for authority and opponents.

Refs, umpires and coaches are verbally and physically assaulted.

Parents are sometimes excessive in the way they push their kids to be the best.

Coaches are demanding perfection from their players and punish them when they give anything less.

Trump?

Trump just calls people who didn’t vote for him ‘losers’.

Trump demeans media that fairly criticizes him as ‘dishonest’ or ‘failing.’

Trump demeans loyalty of followers but does not share loyalty of they cannot contribute to the win.

I imagine my main issue, beyond the fact this type of competitiveness does not encourage unity, is that I expect my President to be a role model for ‘better’ and not play to the worst of us.

And while I abhor bad winners I have a larger issue with what Mr. President Elect Trump is doing.

Children learn by example. We need to be extremely careful that kids do not get mixed messages from mentors and role models.

So what example are they getting from Trump? How to be a bad winner.

<and I am not sure he cares what lesson he is sharing with the young or if he is simply oblivious to his responsibility to be a role model>

He won. He is going to be our president <note: even of the “losers & enemies”>. He needs to start acting like a good winner and a tough respectful competitor and, well, act like a fucking leader and not a ‘loser’.

Look.

It is an honor and privilege to play a game and compete at a high level.

It is an honor and a privilege to compete for the presidency and serve as a president.

It is NOT an honor and a privilege to win – that is reserved for the competition itself. The win itself deserves respect.

That is what we all need to remember and teach our children.

Competition in and of itself is supposed to be about being the best we are capable of and respecting our own abilities as well as respecting others regardless of whether their best is better than our best.

Oh. And respecting everyone … teammates, opponents, coaches, refs and spectators.

Yes.

Sports are inherently competitive <hence the reason there is a winner and a loser>. Life is inherently competitive <hence the reasons some people get promotions and some do not>.

And, let’s face it; competition brings out the best, and worst, in everyone. But I imagine my point then is that competition, and sportsmanship, inevitably is about character. And that competition, and winning or losing, makes a person’s real character come out.

Oh. I hate to break the news to everyone, competition and how you handle it takes work and training and shaping and thoughtfulness.

Sportsmanship SHOULD be simple. But it’s not. Losing hurts and winning can easily create feelings of blinding euphoria.

You can teach principles of good sportsmanship to anyone but, in the end, it’s about each person & experience.

Children watch.

They see cheating, lying, badmouthing, complaining to officials … all of which are reflections of someone’s character. More people need to take responsibility <and not blame “the game” or “the moment” or … well … anything>.

I suggest Mr. President-elect do so.

If you win, you do so with grace <because if you do even your competitors will respect you … and potentially follow you>.

If you lose, you do so with grace < because if you do even your competitors will respect you … and potentially follow you>.

I suggest Mr. President-elect do so.

Look.

Competitiveness isn’t really about competing … it’s about personal character – resilience, heart, humility, perseverance.

But. Maybe here is the hard lesson.

Cheaters do win. Maybe not philosophically, but in the win/loss column. That is where I like to point out to people winning or losing is about character.

There are a couple of scoreboards for people who play sports.

One is the win/loss record.

One is a life scoreboard.

Sportsmanship shows up on the life scoreboard. While I wish more people would pay attention to that second scoreboard I am fairly sure with our new President, who possibly embodies the penultimate ‘bad winner’, it is going to be tougher and tougher to teach our young people what matters.

=======

believe in the truth.
I believe that every good thought I have,
All men shall have.

Kenneth Patchen

========

This new year’s tweet from Trump was horrible. Horrible not just from a personal perspective but also from a business leader perspective <no sane CEO or president of a company would ever send a tweet out like this> and also from a President’s perspective <who supposedly is seeking to unite a country … all 320 million people … not just his 60 million>.

Trump is doing everything we teach our children not to do if they win.

Which makes me ask: how can it be that a person who can’t even articulate a New Year’s wish is going to be the leader of a country I love?

He is a playing a dangerous game. And I wish he would play the game differently.

I respected Jim Courier as a tennis player and I respect his words even more … “sportsmanship for me is when a guy walks off the court and you really can’t tell whether he won or lost, when he carries himself with pride either way.”

Trump has walked off the court and refuses to carry himself with pride, or even a dose of humility let alone respect the win. And if one of his heinous surrogates comes back at me and suggests “they cannot accept the win” or “they are undermining his election” and that he isn’t creating the issue in public I have two words for you — “shut up.”

If he chooses to lead … he owns his win, he owns the narrative and he owns the topic. He has not elected to show leadership yet.

This may be the understatement of the year … he is not a gracious winner.

This New Year’s Eve Trump tweet is an embarrassment to the presidency.

I expect more, and better, from any leader let alone my President Elect.

<originally written December 31, 2016>

======

“Understanding why was more interesting than understanding who. The story of why things are the way they are is heartbreakingly beautiful.”

———

Keegan Allen

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

Ok. This is a lot about some harsh business truth (a good idea shouldn’t be implemented if it isnt a good fit for a business) as well as a different business perspective on a different “Why” and why this perspective matters.

I admit. I chafe a little on the Simon Sinek “people buy your Why” thought mostly because I believe it is the wrong “Why” question. His Why is a slightly misguided and oft misused Purpose Why. My Why gets to the core of what makes a business a business – its soul not its Purpose. By the way. This ‘soul’ can be an amalgamation of some wacky adopted bad things (beliefs, process, systems) and good things (loyalty, heart, integrity, beliefs).

Regardless. Yeah. I am one of those wacky business people who will listen for hours to stories about why things are the way they are at a business. Even wackier? I am not one of those business people who act surprised when I hear all the “why it is what it is” stories.

Many people want to hear about the people.

Many people want to hear about the ideas … or even what someone thinks or what they want.

Many people want to let others talk about whatever they want to talk about.

All of that is well and good. But me? Give me the story of “why the voodoo you do is done this way.”

I am actually surprised more businesses don’t ask that question or are as curious about it. I am surprised because if you know the ‘why’ you at least have a fighting chance of offering something doable & constructive. In fact. While many business people shake their heads over all the crazy “why shit happens” stories the truth is … well … that crazy stuff actually offers the truth. The ‘why’ gives us reality. Bad reality sometimes? Sure. But reality nonetheless.

Far too often we offer business folk offer solutions, and many times really good solutions, which are simply non practical for the business and people we are offering it to. Crazy as it sounds … not every business can implement a good idea. In fact trying to implement a good idea in a business whose “why it is” doesn’t align with the idea more often than not creates a nightmare idea.

A business is a business. It comes with all the warts and positives gained throughout the years.

To be clear.

Yes. I like to hear the objective.

Yes. I absolutely love to hear the vision <assuming someone actually has one>.

But when push comes to shove while all that stuff is fine and dandy, but if you don’t know why things are the way they are or why that objective hasn’t been attained yet or why that vision has been sitting on some shelf collecting dust for several years, you are screwed. You are screwed because “why things are the way they are”, 99% of the time, have a reason. You may not like the reason, or reasons, but it is a reflection of reality.

It doesn’t mean you cannot change some of the whys.

It doesn’t mean you can’t jump, side step or tunnel under some of the whys.

But why shit is the way it is reflects the realities of that particular business. And you either have to face that fact or ignore at your own peril. Ignoring it most likely means whatever great idea you are offering that business is doomed.

I cannot tell you how many really good ideas I have seen die because they just didn’t take into account the ‘why things are the way they are’ in that business. It is the amateur business consultant who suggests that ‘with the proper internal alignment initiative we can get this idea up & running to the benefit of the business’ for a businesses. They are amateurs because they assume you can reshape all the “why it is” to make it fit the idea.

I don’t think I am that smart, but suffice it to say I am fairly sure most experienced business people can see good solutions for any business fairly quickly once they get up to speed on that business and its situation.

Most people can do that.

But solutions are not all round pegs and businesses are not all round holes. I cannot tell you how many really good solutions I have tossed in the trash simply because they would never be implemented by the business it would have been really good for. Suffice it to say … a lot.

I would note that the opening quote resonated with me mostly because of the last thing I just wrote.

It is heartbreaking to sit in some business meeting and you have the great solution right there at your fingertips and you know after listening to the ‘why things are the way they are’ stories you have to leave it right there on the table and shove it somewhere into some unlabeled folder.

That doesn’t mean you can’t come up with something else that helps. But, oh, it is heartbreaking when the best solution is just not doable.

What helps me get over it?

Maddening or not I find the ‘why things are the way they are’ stories beautiful — beautifully tragic, beautifully fortunate, beautifully doomed and beautifully hopeful. And I think it helps me better find the “beautiful solution.”

In the end … business is almost always a beautiful struggle between “why it is what it is” and “what I would like to do.”

All that said.

Yes. Some “why shit is done this way” should be dismantled. But for today, at this time and on this topic, people should sit back and ponder the thought most businesses need to get shit done now and not dismantle shit now & get shit done later. Ponder that because many of us who get businesses “unstuck” (consultants) cannot afford to offer unusable great ideas to functionally dysfunctional (companies with quirks) businesses. Our job is to elevate them. Sometimes this means holding a great idea that is right for their business until you can figure out how to make the organization right for the idea. Until then? You develop a beautiful idea matched to the beauty of the organization that exists.

 =================

“Sustained success is largely a matter of focusing regularly on the right things and making a lot of uncelebrated little improvements every day.”

—

Theodore Levitt

=====

“People don’t want quarter-inch drills. They want quarter inch holes.”

—

Theodore Levitt

===== 

“The essence of strategy is choosing what not to do.”

—

Michael Porter

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

Well.

……… me on the plane ……….

As I was picking my way through an old Economist <May 2015> magazine on a plane flight I came across an article where The Boston Consulting Group <a smart business consulting firm most known for its “stars, cash cows, dogs & question mark” business matrix> had published something suggesting that a single overarching business strategy, in today’s business world, is a recipe for failure.

Well. That made me sit up a little. That is something I have believed … well … ever since I was experienced enough to understand what I was learning in the business strategy world. That is also something, my belief, which sometimes made my business career slightly miserable. Because this thought is not the norm, nor the most acceptable, in the typical management office in business <then & now>.

Let’s be clear. This whole business strategy discussion is important … really important.  Strategy makes or breaks a business. In fact … strategy is more important than great leadership and perseverance and hard work and even luck <although all those things are quite helpful>. Strategy is always challenging. More often than not you have some business vision and hunker down with some strategy to attain it.

It is during the hunkering down period that some challenges start raising their heads.

There will always be characteristics of a good solid strategy that imbue an organization with confidence that it is a guide towards what is needed to succeed. And, yet, there are some other characteristics of this elusive, but probably well thought out strategy, which do not necessarily burst with confidence but rather they represent the greyish areas of the strategy. These are actually the parts of the strategy which are built to adapt and morph into something solid when the time & place occurs.

That said. All that grayish stuff does not imbue confidence.

Inevitably most companies pursue a variety of diverse thoughts and will end up choosing maybe not a completely new strategy but certainly pursue somewhat different paths. Those ‘different paths’ is actually all about trying things, following the good ones and eliminating the bad ones. well … that can sure sound a lot like chaos.

It surely could be if it were not closely attached to self-interest <and not survival>. Trying strategies on like a new suit for a formal occasion is about reforming and adapting skipping nimbly from one strategy to another to assume your place in the context of the situation. It can also take on some characteristics of chaos if you do not shed some things, strategies included, as you adapt.

As I noted in something I wrote in June 2014 that as an organization naturally grows in fits & starts it will certainly … uhm … no … absolutely … gather up some bad characteristics. Well. Ok. Maybe some characteristics which are like barnacles on the ship. They slow you down. Eliminating those barnacles is hard. And the hard truth in is they must go if the business wants to be successful.

Old less than effective strategies are included in this barnacle discussion. They must go as the organization adapts, if you accept the multi strategy thinking.

The whole adapting and adding and discarding discussion is easy when talking about tactics. Businesses do it all the time and pat themselves on the back for ‘being nimble and adapting to the market needs.’ They ignore the fact that tactics are simply window dressing and that these changes are simply a new paint job on a slowly sinking ship. While it may sound too simplistic to suggest businesses would be better off thinking of strategies as easy to change as tactics … it may actually be some sound advice. Well. Sound advice for non-amateurs. Advice like that taken in hand by someone who didn’t really understand strategy and vision would most likely be a disaster.

Look.

In my heart of hearts I have always balked at one overarching unchanging business strategy. It made no sense to me <okay … it made sense I just didn’t think it was particularly effective in an ever changing business environment>. I just never was smart enough to articulate why what I believed made more sense. While I loved that part of business, strategic positioning businesses in the marketplace, I often found myself being forced to apply square peg strategy solutions into what I saw as businesses’ ever evolving round, trapezoid, hexagonal, triangular and, yes, sometimes, square strategy opportunity holes. I often felt like I was being asked to place a stripped screw into a nail hole.

I wanted a tighter fit.

I always wanted to switch and blend and, as we often suggest a business is unique & distinct, I always felt a business deserved a distinct strategy and not one we simply pulled off the shelf.

Frankly, one overarching strategy in today’s fast moving & amazing competitive diverse business environment is a formula for eventual obsoletion. The marketplace naturally cycles and it seems slightly outdated thinking to believe if your organization doesn’t cycle it can ride out the marketplace cycle successfully. This obsoletion can happen even if the business is well run, running well and providing a high level of service and satisfaction. Because as I noted in one of my ‘creative destruction’ articles there is always some scrappy entrepreneurial business out there thinking about how to rewrite the rules of doing business in that category and industry.

I am not suggesting you have to create your own strategy <although I am a fan of a hybrid strategy> but you can certainly select one of the commonly accepted strategies from a menu and switch back & forth as the situation dictates. This means you can use accepted strategy platforms but by constantly adapting the strategy a business can avoid the undesirable situation of:

<a>deciding to having to leap into the unknown and stop leading and instead emulating the businesses infringing upon an industry they used to know so well … or,

<b> simply exist as an ever limiting cash cow, or a business solely relying on operations, in other words … destined to becoming a marginal player in a new world.

By the way. This is not about disruption <which has become an overused and ill-used word> but rather managing a business to take advantage of a diverse range of opportunities which inevitably arise in any industry and category.

Anyway. This may sound slightly chaotic and certainly difficult to manage and keep everything, and everyone, in line.

I do not believe it is chaotic, but I do know 100% for sure, it is difficult to do. But as someone smarter than I has said in the past … “nothing worth doing is easy.” But it is worth doing. I have always felt, sometimes balking at what I was being taught, that strategic change is almost a must for long term survival. I say ‘almost’ because if you are big enough, strong enough and savvy enough … like a huge nose tackle in football … you can bull your way through almost anything in your way <for awhile .. until your legs get tired or you get triple teamed>.

Now. Leaders, businesses who do lead, may suggest that this strategy shifting thing is not for them..

But part of leading is recognizing not only that someone is chasing you but that they may be getting a little close to you … and you should pull a ‘crazy Ivan.’ I always called this shaking the etch a sketch. This is not disruption per se – this is more like simply changing the context, the game and the rules. Make the others adapt.

So.

The how. How to do this.

The article in The Economist whined a little bit about how the authors of the Boston Consulting Group didn’t share ‘ways to implement so that managers didn’t go crazy or astray.’ Most likely because they didn’t have to.

Most good businesses do not stray from their core competence and skill. Functionally what they do well. And they combine this with an attitudinal/character compass.

Note I say “good businesses.’ Because I will also note, as I have in the past, for some reason defining these two things is oddly more difficult than one would think. And agreement even if you define it? Yikes. Even tougher.

In the end.

I would suggest pursuing an inconsistent consistent strategy shift is very much like simply pursing self-interest <not survival interest>. The distinction I make here is that survival suggests ‘do anything to survive’ and this more often than not can lead you down some paths that permit you to survive short term but long term can put you in some untenable position. Self interest suggests more ego-ism centered therefore naturally imbibes aspects of self-vision, character and embodiment of who and what you are. This self interest permits you to navigate the natural tension in business of maintaining a stable business model that produces consistent results and the embracing of some reinvention. I say this because a healthy self, a person, navigates this same tension in Life therefore if you view business as … well … not just a business seeking to survive & thrive but rather a personal self-interest modality you can embrace both the rewarding stability and the rewarding reinvention.

I will note many of the high falutin’ books on strategy avoid this topic. Their core premise is staying the course to maximize return and simplify overarching decision making. And, I admit, the path I am recommending is a rockier road <but far more interesting>.

Anyway. Maybe about a dozen years ago or so in my attempt to address this I developed a philosophy based on staking out a business compass based on something I called “the inner truth.”  <see image to the right>.

I believed if a business could understand and embrace their inner truth than day to day business could have some flexibility & autonomy. In some cases I would even suggest strategy could adapt … as long as they stayed true to their inner truth. The concept of strategic agility and flexibility is extremely appealing. It is challenging but has a tendency to combine what almost every business desires — the nimbleness of the start-up/entrepreneurial years and the solid consistency knowledge gained from experience offers.

What I do know, and feel slightly vindicated that the Boston consulting group has finally jumped on the ‘adaptable strategy train’, is that the combination of a solid consistent vision core being enabled by an adapting semi-autonomous strategic construct around it creates a higher likelihood of success in the marketplace.

Our strategy.

Be smart. Be thoughtful. Try things. Follow those that work. Adapt. Never lose sight of the core no matter what you explore.

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

“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.

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

“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.

=============== 

“In general, people are not drawn to perfection in others. People are drawn to shared interests, shared problems, and an individual’s life energy. Humans connect with humans.

Hiding one’s humanity and trying to project an image of perfection makes a person vague, slippery, lifeless, and uninteresting.”

—

Robert Glover

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

“Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone.

—–

Saul D. Alinsky

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

So. The question today is: Is there anything marketing people can learn from a revolutionary?

I thought about this after fishing around for some new ways to talk about leading a business <I get bored with using the same words and thoughts over and over again> and I came across the Saul Alinsky quote ( the second one I used upfront).

It resonated with me because I cannot tell you how many times I have sat in some company “forward thinking strategy” meeting discussing how we would expand the business … stretching not only beyond the existing functional strength of the business but also stepping beyond the existing expertise of the employees <note: I can actually tell you ‘too many times’>. Expanding thoughts are usually cloaked in the infamous “oh, if we can do this, we can certainly do this” statement … or the even more dangerous “we have always figured it out” mantra.

To be clear … progress is always tricky. And leading progress almost even trickier. But, if you want it to be less trickier, ‘feeling secure’ is almost always a great step toward increasing the odds of success.

Now.

You can secure this ‘secure feeling’ in a number of ways – some reality based and some emotionally charged ways. And that is where Saul Alinsky comes back into the leadership discussion. He wrote a book called Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals in 1971.   He wrote it as a guide to community organization <uniting “Have-Nots”, in order for them to gain social, political, legal, and economic power>. What I loved about the Rules, beyond the rules themselves, was that Alinsky believed, when organized and directed well, the community can determine & achieve its purpose & goal. That thought, to me, is exactly the attitude a leader attempts to create <supporting a vision offered by the leader> within an organization.

What I loved about the Rules is the rules themselves are actually signposts for how to have a company compete in the marketplace.

That said.

Let me share the rules and some brief thoughts with the rules. The Rules:

—

• “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood.

Far too often … despite the fact 99% of businesses unequivocally state “our difference is our people” … a business forgets to actually build their power off of flesh & blood.

Money comes and goes.

Machines and infrastructure does what it does.

But people, flesh & blood, is the true power. It pays, as a leader, to never forget that. Empowering people is the most powerful engine you can ever build.

• “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone.

Every business I have been involved with has had an expertise. Uhm. The difficulty is that far too many leaders & managers wish the organization had a different expertise or they aspire to some other expertise.

I, personally, love the thought of isolating a company expertise, consolidating the inside expertise and using it like a battering ram in terms of progress. People love doing things well and being appreciated for the expertise they have <and not diminished by suggesting they should have another expertise>. Too many businesses make excuses for what they don’t have, or do, and not love what they do have & do.

• “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty.

When I saw this one I almost chuckled. It is so good, so solidly strategically right … and I would guess 95% of businesses never think this way. Oh. They may be happy  identifying a “this is what we are better at than they are” and competing with that in their hip pocket … but I struggle to think of any business I have ever been involved with who has sat down and said “let’s go outside their expertise <and consciously accepting they have an expertise.”

Crushing a competitor is always fun but ignoring an opportunity to outflank them is stupid.

• “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules.

Ok. Here is why I loved this one. I loved it because bullshit & hollow rhetoric and promises/claims are strewn throughout the business world. I can guarantee, with 95% certainty, I could pick up any business’s vision & strategy & ‘rules of the road’ binder and find a significant amount of hollow bullshit. What would happen if I consciously attacked one of my competitor’s hollow shit? Make them live up to their own book of rules?

I am chuckling. You would crush them.

You would crush them in two ways:

• External perceptions: everyone knows almost all businesses make hollow promises but get aggravated when it becomes too obvious that the promise really is hollow.
• Internal perceptions: almost every employee simply accepts that some of the company rhetoric is bullshit but they accept it because it doesn’t really affect them. But if the hollow rhetoric becomes obvious AND a pain in the ass … discontent grows. Bitching at the water cooler increases.

This is an awesome competitive leadership thought.

• “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.

I admit. Ridiculing your competition is fraught with peril. However … having some swagger and vocalizing your swagger is … well … infuriating to some competition. It puts pressure on them. Ridiculing, specifically, what a competitor believes is their most potent weapon will … well … infuriate them.

Pick your path wisely but there is absolutely nothing wrong with swagger, infuriating your competition and putting some pressure on them.

• “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones.

Far too often some strategic guru envisions some tactic that will be smashingly successful and then attempt to imbue some excitement within the people who will actually do it. Imbuing excitement is like trying to convince me I will love Brussels Sprouts the next time I eat them <I hate Brussels Sprouts>. Excitement comes from within someone not thru “imbuing” or external encouragement. I think the best strategic thinkers find tactics that people enjoy AND can be smashingly successful. Unfortunately this is harder than you would think. But nothing really good is easy.

• “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news.

Amen. A lesson we forget every day <and should not>.

• “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new.

Tactical adaptation is possibly one of the most underrated strategic decisions a business can make. While we talk a good game on this in today’s ‘digital world’ the truth is that most of us chase numbers more than we think about outflanking and expertise advantages. That is kind of the bane of the ‘big data’ world.

Numbers are good in judging things but, in the end, people & behavior are not numbers and no matter how good a tactic may appear in a number it can always be replaced.

• “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist.

I am not an empty threat guy, however, ‘power is what the competition thinks you have.’ My point here is not to make shit up and offer empty threats but rather the more you can make a competitor think, and worry, about the wrongs things the better off you are. Stoke their imagination. Make them have high falutin’ meetings pondering “what if” scenarios.

I wouldn’t do this to replace any of the other rules … but in combination? Whew. This is good stuff.

• “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.” It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign.

Sometimes in today’s business world we treat tactics like spaghetti we throw against the wall and hope something sticks. I am not suggesting a business should invest gobs of energy developing operations to maintain constant pressure in INDIVIDUAL tactics but I am suggesting that strategic tactics tend to coalesce and operations can be developed to support them. Agility is the big buzzword these days but it shouldn’t come at the expense of having a ground game which constantly grinds against the competition.

I imagine the real point here is hollow tactics may generate some numbers for you but they don’t really make any dent into the competition <which, inevitably, is the key to leading an industry>.

• “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog.

I love this thought because, let’s be honest, we have become a mamby pamby business world. What I mean by that is at the first glimpse of any significant negativity we tend to retreat or retrench. Pushing through a negative is not standard operating procedure in a business today. Shit. Using a perceived vulnerability as a strength is almost non existent.

Let me be clear on this one.

If you do Rule #5 well, you will infuriate your competition. An infuriated competitor reacts <usually with some desire to inflict some negative pain> — they will violently react. If you stay the course, maintain your expertise, well … you can push through and own a positive.

More businesses need to remember this.

• “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem.

I call this “consolidating a win.”

I cannot tell you how many times <but far too many> I have seen a business “lose after winning.” It is maddening, depressing & demoralizing … and completely avoidable. Far too many businesses chase the success assuming they will be able to take a breath and take advantage of the success in a relatively timely fashion.

This is where ideas die.

In the take-a-breath moment.

This happens for a bunch of well-intended reasons … the most likely one is everyone invests their energy on the attack and a successful attack rather than diverting any energy & time to “what do we do when we are successful” other than maybe a framework of ‘what will happen.’ Unfortunately … frameworks do not consolidate.

The solution to this is so obvious I scratch my head as to why more businesses do not do it. Businesses always have two basic levels … the outside structure and the inside structure. The outside is the face of the organization and most typically is the one that pushes through and creates the ‘wins.’ The inside operations gets shit done … I have always had an ‘inside operations team’ well briefed and ready to go and insert them into the breach as soon as the win has occurred and have the ‘fresh team’ consolidate.

I could write an entire ‘consolidation strategy’ piece but suffice it to say your business gains value in a number of dimensions by doing it this way.

The larger point with this Rule is ‘don’t lose a win by not having a plan for when you win.’

• “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.

Well. Let me share the thought that first hit me on this … “a brand is a promise delivered in the store everyday” <this was The Limited’s phrase>. The point is that a business doesn’t exist if it doesn’t deliver upon what it promises.

That said … this is an important rule. As in a REALLY important rule that I bet 99% of companies do not even think about let alone adhere to. Most businesses target another competitor’s users & customers and go about trying to steal them <persuade them to switch>.

Well.

What about instead we attacked the company, the support network … the “promise” as it were … and make the people who actually deliver the promise start doubting, or start feeling less than secure, or just “less good about their brand & promise”? If we did this, we create a gap, isolate as it were, between what the customer thought they wanted and what they perceive they are getting or would get.

I love this rule. I admit I had never thought about it this way before … but from here on out it is part of my leadership toolkit.

———

Okay.

Those are some good rules for business.

But you know what?

It all comes back to the first Rule and my first quote.

Flesh & blood is the real power in any business and people are drawn to shared interests, shared problems, and an individual’s life energy. Humans connect with humans.

Honestly … I don’t think most leaders ignore the fact the people in their organizations are important, but I think we don’t elevate them to ‘flesh & blood is the power’ status.

And that is where the Rules come in.

Inherent to each rule, and the success therein, resides with the flesh & blood.

That is the most pragmatic of the pragmatic reminders for radicals leading a business.

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

“Opinion is really the lowest form of human knowledge. It requires no accountability, no understanding.

The highest form of knowledge … is empathy, for it requires us to suspend our egos and live in another’s world.  It requires profound purpose larger than the self kind of understanding.” 

―

Bill Bullard

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

 “I give zero fucks about anything yet I have strong opinions about everything, even topics I’m uniformed on.”

–

Hannah <Girls>

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

“You’re entitled to your own opinion, but you’re not entitled to your own facts.”

—-

Daniel Moynihan

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

Opinions.

In any given situation we all have one – just like an asshole. I say that because having an opinion, more likely than not, will make you an asshole.

Trust me. I have lots of opinions. And lots of people think I am an asshole.

That said.

While we tend to take this whole topic of ‘opinion giving’ and opinion and wad it up into some smelly misshapen spitball of nastiness, the truth is that not all opinions are created equal. The truth is that opinions come in a wide variety spanning from complete and utter made up bullshit to solidly grounded fact based thinking. To be clear, this means that I am taking the distinction of opinions beyond the absurdity we seem to be currently facing that, simplistically, facts are very much like opinions. It is absurd because facts and opinions are as different as a bird that an fly and a flightless bird.

Opinions are discard-able — what I own one day can be discarded for another on another day.

Facts are, well, facts cannot be discarded and, yet, in today’s world we seem to treat facts exactly the same way. This not only implies facts don’t matter but, correspondingly, truth is negotiable <if mattering at all>.

Opinions, facts, whatever … it doesn’t matter because we seem to be relatively indifferent to whether something is grounded in fact based evidence or even reality. Now … there are certainly some cues to the more bullshit opinions … one well-used cue is:

“there is no smoke without fire”

Yeah, but half the time the ‘fire’ is simply that someone made some shit up. It’s a really stupid proverb, used as an excuse to desperately cling to unjustified beliefs & opinions. Facts are more difficult to translate into “cues” mostly because simply calling something a fact does not actually make it a fact. 

==========

“When you are studying any matter or considering any philosophy ask yourself only what are the facts and what is the truth that the facts bear out.

Never let yourself be diverted either by what you wish to believe or by what you think would have beneficent social effects if it were believed but look only and solely at what are the facts.“ 

Bertrand Russell 1959

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

Suffice it to say … opinions swing maddeningly back and forth between emphasizing ‘ a focus group of one’  to magnify some theoretical scale which, when used cleverly, can be leveraged to undermine the fabric of some truth and a well-articulated grounded-in-fact view. This swinging wide range of opinions promotes a greater sense of questioning the expertise of anyone who might calmly assess the wide range of opinions and attempt to weigh them properly.

This means both opinion givers and opinions assessors are diminished <and all that remains is an opinion — false or true>.

Whew.

I know I write things out in as many thoughtful pieces as I can on enlightened conflict just so I can, personally, skew my thinking away from simple rants and toward some enlightened opinion <scattered with real facts>.

To me a good opinion is due some dignity and integrity. Those who disagree tend to be the ones who spew forth intolerance, conspiracy theories and wild claims of ‘this is unequivocal truth’ <remember … beware those who claim truth>.

No doubt there are many aesthetic pleasures to opinions. I certainly enjoy them. I do think it is incredibly important for people to tell you what they are thinking, what side they are on and why and even some recognition of perceived bias. A well crafted/formed opinion is actually valuable in that others, assuming they have a somewhat open mind, can think & assess and learn & unlearn.

Therein lies the rub. Today’s opinion environment is not particularly conducive to ‘open mind.’ It is almost like we have embraced what Milton suggested what is so attractive to human beings is Satan’s byword – ‘Evil be Thou my good.’

I believe to untangle the evilness seeping within the world of opinions is to begin recognizing that while all opinion givers may be created equal not all opinions are created equal. The opinion world is almost demanding an “honest and intellectual combat.” I didn’t make up that phrase. In fact if you go read The National Review magazine ‘mission and convictions’ you will not only find a well-crafted conservative manifesto but this:

—

D. The largest cultural menace in America is the conformity of the intellectual cliques which, in education as well as the arts, are out to impose upon the nation their modish fads and fallacies, and have nearly succeeded in doing so. In this cultural issue, we are, without reservations, on the side of excellence (rather than “newness”) and of honest intellectual combat (rather than conformity).

—

Maybe we should all suppose that someone is trying to impose upon us ‘their modish fads & fallacies” and in doing so consciously decide, if we elect to be an opinion giver, to stand on the side of excellence and of honest intellectual combat.

Maybe we should all suppose that opinion is really the lowest form of human knowledge in that it requires no accountability, no understanding.

Maybe we should all suppose that while opinions are important … not all opinions are created equal.

Maybe we should all suppose there is a difference between opinions and facts and admit, on occasion, they can look very very similar and pay a little more attention toward discerning between the two.

All that said. Despite the fact they may look very similar in appearance there is a world of difference between made up shit and solid fact based opinions (verging on a universal truth) and society (as well as ourselves as sentient human beings) would benefit by investing the energy yo know the difference between the two.

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

“Think of value creation, not valuation.”

–

Pranav Marwah

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

I believe we need to spend more time these days discussing value creation before we begin talking about, well, anything else. I believe this for three reasons:

1. Today, it’s often about efficiency. Or minimizing to maximize. Minimize what to put in and then how creatively you craft the features. We should remember production is more about economical/efficient input and selling is more about thoughtful ideation. Regardless. I believe we need to talk more about maximizing without just talking about efficiency.
2. I worry we talk about “things” because they seem like the right thing to do, not because they will add value <based on our vision/mission>. I worry we don’t talk more, and understand better, about what value we provide people. Oh. A business typically knows what they see as value provided, but very rarely turn the telescope and see what value a possible customer desires <or receives>. I worry we don’t talk more about value creation.
3. Unless everyone wants to enter into a race to commodity business needs to start engaging in an effectiveness discussion. Efficiency is inherently about attempting to provide value by stripping away obstacles or the unnecessary. Effectiveness is inherently about persuading people some things are actually necessary for quality, enjoyment or substance to meet your outlay of investment (cash).

I would begin with the fact we know there is a relationship between velocity & value creation. As I noted in ‘obsession with velocity’, velocity is always about decisions. What I mean by that is there is never any lack of things to do in a business, but some just aren’t worth doing.

Velocity projects fall into 2 slots:

• value creation initiatives which increase velocity of value offered (transactional value opportunities)
• velocity initiatives which increase the velocity of the organization itself & indirectly enhances value (structural value elevation)

Make your project decisions wisely. Velocity is all that matters not only because it guarantees progress, rather than simple “hamster in a wheel” speed, but it also inherently gravitates toward value creation.

Regardless.

Value creation comes in two basic constructs: structural and transactional and revolves around efficiency and effectiveness.

Here you go. Just ponder.

efficiency and effectiveness

All value begins, and ends, with efficacy or the balance between efficiency & effectiveness. Many people when viewing his grid for the first time ask who would ever want to (a) be in the lower left hand quadrant or (b) be below the line at all.

Many business, and specific products, live & die off of efficiency. There is nothing wrong with that. In addition, a low cost provider will care less about effectiveness because their inherent ‘value’ is found in cheapest. I would argue everyone wants some balance but there will always be at least one incredibly efficient, not as effective, business and there will always be at least one incredibly effective business where efficiency is just not that important. Similarly, I could argue a business in & of itself can have all of these things within their business and the collection of them all make up the larger value creation offering.

Regardless. Look for your unique balance and, well, choose wisely.

structural value creation

This is the x axis. Efficiency to left effective to right.

Structural value can be generated through efficiency or effectiveness. Efficiency means your structural change reduces costs (tangibly or intangibly like time). Effectiveness means your structural change increases value to a point that increases price or offer opportunities for premium transactions/offers.

For example, adding 5G in a city is a structural value creation. It lifts everything to a higher value. Digital transformation is also. It’s an infrastructure change which provides structural value creation.

In addition. A structural value creation may, or may not additionally offer specific transactional value creation situations. What this means is incremental value for a specific transaction over and above the basic structural value creation.

transactional value creation

This is the Y axis.

Efficiency at the bottom, effective at top.

Organizations often seek bite sized improvements, therefore, may explore ways to offer distinct transactional value creation.

From an efficiency standpoint these could be things like frictionless engagement, speed, or any improvement which increases convenience or ease of use.

From an effectiveness standpoint these would be things which increase quality of actual transaction. Better products, more effective outcomes, etc.

For example. You could create a video platform, or an AI platform (to show traditional and technology) which enhances a specific transaction to a point in which you could create value (additional sales) or simply charge a higher price.

Value Proposition vs. Employee Value Proposition

Once identifying the value creation one offers a business you develop a value proposition ( a way to communicate what value you create). I would suggest this is an exercise not just for customers but also as a hiring criteria. You want to attract customers who desire what value you offer and you would like to hire people who contribute to your value creation proposition.

In its simplest terms, a value proposition is a positioning statement that explains what benefit you provide for who and what effective/efficient way you do it. Your value proposition isn’t meant to appeal to everyone, but it should have a value appeal of some distinction (not necessarily differentiation).

Lastly.

Now that maybe I’ve given you some things to ponder let me say, frankly, we don’t speak often enough about value creation dynamics within organizational modeling & business construct. Value creation, at its core, is all about people – what they do as well as what they think. Huh? When an individual feels like they are doing something of value & their value can be maximized, the organizational value creation inevitably is maximized. I would argue if you focus on the value-creation-structure the people will believe they are part of value creation and the formal structure will either fall in place or will be simpler to match up to how the value is created.

That’s it.

Value creation. I just don’t see how any business can have an effective vision or mission if they haven’t gone through this exercise. If you don’t have this conversation and go through the rigor, well, it seems like you run a major risk you will not get what you deserve – revenue, profit, customers or even employees.