“But if these years have taught me anything it is this: you can never run away.
Not ever.
The only way out is in.”
=
Junot Díaz
–
—–
–
“I thought how unpleasant it is to be locked out; and I thought how it is worse, perhaps, to be locked in.”
=
Virginia Woolf
–
———
Ok.
This is about doors and opportunities and attitude.
Uhm.
Attitude?
Life almost demands that you have a little bit of a rogue in you <I just wanted to use the word rogue> in order to take advantage of all the doors you will encounter in Life.
I say that because if you wait for someone to hand you a key … or someone to put a sign on the door to say ‘this way’ you will end up standing in some hallway with all those hideous paintings you always see hanging in doctors’ offices staring at them for eternity … and going nowhere.
Assume you will not see all the doors <and some cannot be seen>.
Assume all doors are closed.
Assume all doors can be opened.
Assume all doors lead somewhere.
Assume all doors lead you out <not to run away> but they also always lead you in somewhere.
Assume once a door closes behind you it … well … locks.
Assume the doors you open and walk thru will not only open the way to new version of life but your choices can actually define you.
——
“Maybe it’s not the doors that open in our lives, but the doors that close that define us.
That guide us.
Because they force us to move on. Instead of thinking about what we lose, look at what we can gain. “
=
Katie Kacvinsky
—–
Here is what I know <not assume>.
Doors are a given in life. It is pretty much one of the few things you know will be there.
Door signs are not a given in life. It is pretty much one of the few things you know will not be there.
Opportunities will be limitless <in one sense> and limited <in another>.
Limitless in that the hallways of your life are strewn with doors. In fact … I would imagine there are so many you can be overwhelmed with choices.
Limited in that because it can be overwhelming you can focus on one door <with all the best intentions> only to find that we can become blinded to ones which open all on their own.
—
“Sometimes we stare so long at a door that is closing that we see too late the one that is open.”
=
Alexander Graham Bell
———–
Oh.
We should also remember that all these doors we see and open … well … may appear to doors crafted by the hands of Life … but for the most part are all in a home we build for ourselves.
Yup.
In general our lives are houses we build <they are not built for us>.
Therefore the doors & opportunities are controlled in some form or fashion by ourselves.
That is a thought we should all remember.
The other thought?
And while we build this house of ours … some of us are desperately bad builders and decorators.
Despite that … we need to remember … all homes have doors.
And doors open in … and out.
And you have to have the attitude to open some, leave some closed, leave some behind and walk through as many as you can <despite the fact you can’t really see what is behind the door>.
All I really know for sure is that Life is full of doors.
And I do not know for sure … but I imagine it helps if you have a little bit of a rogue in you in order to take advantage of all the doors you will encounter in Life.
“No matter what you are looking at, you can find something wrong with it, something imperfect, something that is not okay with you.
Don’t worry, if you look hard enough you’ll find it.
There is also something ‘right’ with everything.
No matter what you are looking at, you can find something right with it, something perfect.
There remains, then, only one question: What are you going to look at? “
–
—
Neale Donald Walsch
===
Ok.
I have written about how we “see things” before < https://brucemctague.com/seeing-and-well-really-seeing > but this thought piece is a little different. This one is more about how attitude can affect what we see more than heuristics and real psychological stuff.
That said.
I am not an optimist.
Nor am I a pessimist.
I tend to believe I am a cynical optimist.
I love hope.
I love pragmatism.
I am pragmatically hopeful.
I decided to begin that way because I love this quote.
We choose to see what we desire to see.
Ok.
Maybe not desire … but what we expect to see based on out attitude toward Life <not just visual cues we have stored up in our heads>.
Life does not make it easy for us to see what is actually there because it rarely makes something simple for us.
Most things are complex.
In all there is bad and good.
In all there is wrong and right.
I don’t believe what I just wrote is an epiphany to anyone.
However.
I do believe not enough people think about it and how our own personal attitude can skew what we actually see.
Many, maybe most in today’s world, people see wrong …. and focus on wrong <albeit we may do the infamous ‘say something nice first’ before becoming maniacally focused on what we have identified as ‘wrong’>.
And a smaller group of people, who hate those people who focus on only the wrong, become blindingly oblivious to wrong and talk about sweeping hope and the inherent goodness to be found within everyone.
Both options are bad. It is like only have an ‘on/off” switch when most of us should have an attitudinal dimmer switch.
Look.
For most of us … no matter what you look at … you will choose to see what you want to see.
The one thing I can guarantee you will NOT see?
A completed puzzle.
Life, the one around you or even your own, remains a puzzle yet to be put together.
It is a puzzle with pieces which can be pulled out and replaced … it is a puzzle with pieces yet to be found … and even with pieces yet to be made.
Attitudinally I believe we all know this but … well … we hate it. A work in progress is difficult to judge because you never really know where it is on the progress scale, therefore, we like to view things & people as ‘almost finished’ or even ‘main puzzle pieces are in place.’
We are wrong to do so … and most of us know so … but it is still natural for us to do so.
====
“Things are pretty terrible but then again you don’t buy a puzzle that’s already put together.”
—
a tweet Jonah Green
====
That all may sound terrible.
And it may sometimes even look a little terrible around you.
But .. is it really terrible? Are you looking at the wrong things or are you simply seeing what you want to see?
All I can suggest is to look … really look … because sometimes the obvious is not really obvious and what you are shown is not really representative of what could be seen if you push what is being shown to you off to the side.
And, maybe most importantly, you need to push your attitude off to the side and try and see what is as … well … what is.
In the end …. all I can ask is … well … what will you choose to see?
“When I was young I thought that money was the most important thing in life; now that I am old I know that it is.”
=
Oscar Wilde
———————
–
“There’s no such thing as a free lunch.”
=
Milton Friedman
—————————————–
Well.
Economics, money, individual needs & wants and public perception … this is a recipe for disaster.
Discussing money on a personal level is uncomfortable at best.
Discussing money, and deficits & debt, on a country or government level is absurd the majority of the time.
It becomes absurd mostly because the easiest way for everyday schmucks like me to try and understand it is to conceptually think about it on a household level … thinking of a government budget & expenditures kind of a micro level assuming that it translates to the macro level.
This conceptual thinking is not only fraught with peril it is flawed.
And because it is flawed the larger dialogue <mostly driven by politicians> becomes useless and more often misdirected.
Economists try and explain complex dynamics in which it is a discussion sparsely strewn with absolute truths.
And politicians do whatever is needed to gain and stay in power and trot out the simplistic garbage … believing that using the household finance analogy will help overcome the vast difference between a country’s finances and the ordinary voter’s household.
All in all … we get overwhelmed and bamboozled with an inane false narrative under the guise of appealing to our common sense.
It all suggests that leaders & politicians don’t trust us every day schmucks to be smart enough to have a proper discussion about economics in which we can all admit that it’s way more complex than household finance & budget management <with a web of various dynamics consisting of connecting taxes, consumption and borrowing>.
And then I found a very well written article from a guy who understands economics & economies … and how it all works … and explains some of the fallacies to what we are being told by politicians day in and day out <and most of us are buying their bullshit hook, line & sinker>.
I have simply cut & paste the article because I have nothing to add.
=====
Economics:
some common fallacies about austerity
–
==
author: Robert Skidelsky
==
Propositions in economics are rarely absolutely true or false – what is true in some circumstances may be false in others.
The period since 2008 has produced a plentiful crop of recycled economic fallacies, mostly falling from the lips of political leaders.
Here are my four favourites.
–
——
The Swabian Housewife
“One should simply have asked the Swabian housewife,” said German chancellor Angela Merkel after the collapse of Lehman Brothers in 2008.
“She would have told us that you cannot live beyond your means.”
This sensible-sounding logic currently underpins austerity.
The problem is that it ignores the effect of the housewife’s thrift on total demand. If all households curbed their expenditures, total consumption would fall, and so, too, would demand for labour. If the housewife’s husband loses his job, the household will be worse off than before.
The general case of this fallacy is the “fallacy of composition”: what makes sense for each household or company individually does not necessarily add up to the good of the whole. The particular case that John Maynard Keynes identified was the “paradox of thrift”: if everyone tries to save more in bad times, aggregate demand will fall, lowering total savings, because of the decrease in consumption and economic growth.
If the government tries to cut its deficit, households and firms will have to tighten their purse strings, resulting in less total spending. As a result, however much the government cuts its spending, its deficit will barely shrink. And if all countries pursue austerity simultaneously, lower demand for each country’s goods will lead to lower domestic and foreign consumption, leaving all worse off.
——
–
The government cannot spend money it does not have:
This fallacy treats governments as if they faced the same budget constraints as households or companies. But governments are not like households or companies.
They can always get the money they need by issuing bonds.
But won’t an increasingly indebted government have to pay ever-higher interest rates, so that debt-service costs eventually consume its entire revenue? The answer is no: the central bank can print enough extra money to hold down the cost of government debt. This is what so-called quantitative easing does.
With near-zero interest rates, most western governments cannot afford not to borrow.
This argument does not hold for a government without its own central bank, in which case it faces exactly the same budget constraint as the oft-cited Swabian housewife. That is why some eurozone member states got into so much trouble until the European Central Bank rescued them.
–
——
–
The national debt is deferred taxation:
According to this oft-repeated fallacy, governments can raise money by issuing bonds, but, because bonds are loans, they will eventually have to be repaid, which can be done only by raising taxes. And, because taxpayers expect this, they will save now to pay their future tax bills. The more the government borrows to pay for its spending today, the more the public saves to pay future taxes, cancelling out any stimulatory effect of the extra borrowing.
The problem with this argument is that governments are rarely faced with having to “pay off” their debts.
They might choose to do so, but mostly they just roll them over by issuing new bonds. The longer the bonds’ maturities, the less frequently governments have to come to the market for new loans.
More important, when there are idle resources (for example, when unemployment is much higher than normal), the spending that results from the government’s borrowing brings these resources into use. The increased government revenue that this generates (plus the decreased spending on the unemployed) pays for the extra borrowing without having to raise taxes.
–
——-
–
The national debt is a burden on future generations:
This fallacy is repeated so often that it has entered the collective unconscious.
The argument is that if the current generation spends more than it earns, the next generation will be forced to earn more than it spends to pay for it. But this ignores the fact that holders of the very same debt will be among the supposedly burdened future generations.
Suppose my children have to pay off the debt to you that I incurred. They will be worse off. But you will be better off. This may be bad for the distribution of wealth and income, because it will enrich the creditor at the expense of the debtor, but there will be no net burden on future generations.
The principle is exactly the same when the holders of the national debt are foreigners (as with Greece), though the political opposition to repayment will be much greater.
=
——
=
conclusion:
Economics is luxuriant with fallacies, because it is not a natural science like physics or chemistry.
Propositions in economics are rarely absolutely true or false.
What is true in some circumstances may be false in others. Above all, the truth of many propositions depends on people’s expectations.
Consider the belief that the more the government borrows, the higher the future tax burden will be. If people act on this belief by saving every extra pound, dollar, or euro that the government puts in their pockets, the extra government spending will have no effect on economic activity, regardless of how many resources are idle. The government must then raise taxes – and the fallacy becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
So how are we to distinguish between true and false propositions in economics?
Perhaps the dividing line should be drawn between propositions that hold only if people expect them to be true and those that are true irrespective of beliefs.
The statement, “if we all saved more in a slump, we would all be better off,” is absolutely false. We would all be worse off. But the statement, “the more the government borrows, the more it has to pay for its borrowing,” is sometimes true and sometimes false.
Or perhaps the dividing line should be between propositions that depend on reasonable behavioural assumptions and those that depend on ludicrous ones.
If people saved every extra penny of borrowed money that the government spent, the spending would have no stimulating effect. True. But such people exist only in economists’ models.
–
================ The End ======================
Well.
Let me add … government finances are dynamic amorphous beings that live, eat and breathe.
They are most successful when using a combination of austerity and investment.
I always get a little grumpy when a discussion I am having turns to a “we need to do this or that” type solutioning.
Complex dynamic systems need complex dynamic solutions.
We may seek simplicity.
We may suggest we need simplicity.
In the end … only complexity will maintain progress and explain what needs to be done
“Before I go on with this short history, let me make a general observation– the test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function.
One should, for example, be able to see that things are hopeless and yet be determined to make them otherwise.
This philosophy fitted on to my early adult life, when I saw the improbable, the implausible, often the “impossible,” come true.”
—
–
F. Scott Fitzgerald
===
Whew.
Intelligence is a wacky topic.
Fraught with peril.
Therefore I will avoid IQs and any test measured intelligence bullshit and focus on what I call ‘non linear intelligence’.
Some people are great thinkers … extremely intelligent … when logic rules.
These people can line up the data and factors like dominoes and point you to the destination result faster than … well … fast.
They are the drag racers of intelligence.
Uhm.
But ask them to veer a little … and … oops … crash.
Other people are great thinkers … extremely intelligent … when illogical rears its head <or maybe a more chaotic path to the destination result>. They can navigate the disparate information gathering up the useful and discarding the less than useful.
They are the Formula One racers of intelligence.
I will admit that I thought about computers when I thought about intelligent people <in this frame of reference> because I sometimes worry that people intelligence will be devalued by computer intelligence.
It made me ponder <if but just for a moment> the possibility of something being developed called Artificial Superintelligence <ASI … a notch above AI>.
I thought about it because computers think faster and accumulate information and offer results faster and with more breadth of information viewing than most people even now.
My worries were slightly salved when I did some research some guy actually gave me the word comparison I was seeking.
===
A key distinction is the difference between speed superintelligence and quality superintelligence.
–
Often, someone’s first thought when they imagine a super-smart computer is one that’s as intelligent as a human but can think much, much faster—they might picture a machine that thinks like a human, except a million times quicker, which means it could figure out in five minutes what would take a human a decade.
That sounds impressive, and ASI would think much faster than any human could — but the true separator would be its advantage in intelligence quality, which is something completely different.
What makes humans so much more intellectually capable than chimps isn’t a difference in thinking speed — it’s that human brains contain a number of sophisticated cognitive modules that enable things like complex linguistic representations or longterm planning or abstract reasoning, that chimps’ brains do not.
Speeding up a chimp’s brain by thousands of times wouldn’t bring him to our level—even with a decade’s time, he wouldn’t be able to figure out how to use a set of custom tools to assemble an intricate model, something a human could knock out in a few hours.
It’s that his brain is unable to grasp that those worlds even exist—a chimp can become familiar with what a human is and what a skyscraper is, but he’ll never be able to understand that the skyscraper was built by humans.
In his world, anything that huge is part of nature, period, and not only is it beyond him to build a skyscraper, it’s beyond him to realize that anyone can build a skyscraper.
That’s the result of a small difference in intelligence quality.
===
This thought helped me feel a little more comfortable that the great intelligent thinkers will always have a place in the world <and will never be replaced by people>.
But.
I actually believe linear intelligent people will end up competing against ASI computers.
What about non linear intelligent people?
Well.
They will use computers to supplement their thinking.
My main rationale <beyond the wonderful intelligence quality descriptor above>?
Contradictions.
Yup.
Contradictions.
Now.
I am pleased with this thought because I admit that I like contradictions and I do believe they create the most powerful thoughts, ideas and progress in the world.
And a 1st rate intelligent person has the ability to grasp the contradiction <quality> … sometimes even a multi-dimensional contradiction <super quality> … and resolve it mentally with some speed <speed>.
I also believe that computers will struggle with contradiction and resolve that struggle with ‘predictatory modeling.’
It’s kind of like the computer models that simulate a game 100 times and then they tell you the probability of who will win. Many times this modeling it becomes a “55% will win” prediction.
As comparison … does a first rate intelligence simply go by the numbers?
Nope.
And that is what accepting and understanding contradictions is all about.
Well.
I don’t think I am a first rate intelligent person.
I do think I am simply someone who loves contradictions.
Regardless of computers and how they accumulate intelligence … the world will remain chock full of contradictions.
And a world strewn with contradictions should make us ponder more interesting questions and not simply debunk existing knowledge because we cannot accept the contradiction <always seeking the simple as ‘the thing’ rather than simplicity within complexity> . There is certainly some satisfaction to be found in being critical & debunking but we cannot lose sight of the fact it is more interesting to find inspiration in the questioning <and learn more>.
In addition.
Contradictions are almost always at the core of extraordinary bubbling up out of the seemingly ordinary.
====
The idea of the extraordinary happening in the context of the ordinary is what’s fascinating to me.
And the fascinating occurs not because it is some impossible thing appearing magically as something possible but rather it is something that most people, who do not grasp two opposable ideas well or easily, simply overlook … and it suddenly occurs as a natural output of the contradiction.
In general I have always liked logical thinking <no matter how random the logic may be> and I always love it when someone combines some unexpected or random looking logic.
And I love the conflict that naturally occurs when the two opposable ideas are bonded together and presented as something that not only ‘could be’ but what ‘is.’
Two opposable ideas create conflict.
That just is.
Intelligent people not only accept the opposable ideas but figure out how to bond them.
===
“When you have a conflict that means that there are truths that have to be addressed on each side of the conflict.
And when you have a conflict, then it’s an educational process to try to resolve the conflict.
And to resolve that, you have to get people on both sides of the conflict involved so that they can dialogue.”
—
Dolores Huerta
===
In the end.
Maybe a first rate intelligent person simply embraces the education process, the learning process, in trying to resolve contradictions and conflict.
All I know is that we need to encourage that type of thinking in everyone and we should exalt those who actually portray a first rate intelligence.
Without a certain level of commitment on the part of employees, businesses run into some very tangible problems, which soon show up in their profits.
This fear has gripped the imaginations of managers and policymakers in recent years, and not without reason.
Various studies of employee engagement have highlighted the economic costs of allowing workers to become mentally withdrawn from their jobs.
Gallup conducts frequent and wide-ranging studies in this area and has found that only 13% of the global workforce is properly “engaged,” while around 20% of employees in North America and Europe are “actively disengaged.”
They estimate that active disengagement costs the U.S. economy as much as $550 billion a year.
Disengagement is believed to manifest itself in absenteeism, sickness and—sometimes more problematic—presenteeism, in which employees come into the office purely to be physically present. A Canadian study suggests over a quarter of workplace absence is due to general burnout, rather than sickness.
–
William Davies
=========
So.
This is about engaging employees … or maybe it is about activating disengaged employees … uhm … or maybe it is about making employees happy … or finding the unhappy employees and painting a smile on their face.
Ok.
This is simply about managing an employee base.
Employee bases are inherently uneven. This drives management crazy. They want consistency and focused direction and dynamic purpose driven energy.
All the time.
Unfortunately … if you have any meaningful number of employees there will be unevenness.
==
Note:
Everything in Life & business has uneven features … I have written about uneven and brands as well as uneven and growing up:
While we like to think of organizations as a ship sailing into a tumultuous sea … it is actually a fleet of smaller ships being pushed & shoved by tides and waves through storm & calm … all trying to go in one direction together <without crashing into each other>.
And each smaller ship has a captain and a crew <often skilled in managing that particular ship>.
Therein lies the biggest issue in employee engagement discussion.
As soon as someone speaks out about employee engagement, or disengagement, or ‘building a dynamic organization’ or even ‘motivating employees’ they inevitably suggest one big ship making progress in some direction. They are wrong.
While direction may be consistent the speed in which individuals, teams, departments is different. Some may be engaged and be as slow as snails and some may be engaged and faster than Usain Bolt.
CodeCarvings Piczard
The disengaged are still moving and, on occasion, can be compelled to move a little faster. And, on occasion, these same people and groups may seem to be disengaged … and yet they may only be recuperating <and, boy oh boy, a shitload of managers misread that scenario>.
All this unevenness, combined with the fact that everyone knows a happy employee base is a more productive employee base, means the business world has become quite creative <often in some very absurd ways> to manufacture synergy, happiness and engagement.
What may seem even more absurd? Manufacturing employee happiness has become a new profit center within a business.
Well. At least we are treating it like a business objective.
Shit.
Even the research of happiness has become a business … but suffice it to say … research consistently states a happy employee base is a more productive employee base.
Ah.
Once again we have dumbed down an issue to a point where we have lost sight of the real issue.
The real issue? Engagement versus happiness.
Business seems so focused on creating happiness … when it really seems like we should be seeking engagement <and they are different>.
By the way … one <me, you, any leader> can create engagement in a variety of ways not directly associated with happy … any passion – curiosity, interest, excitement, etc. – can create an engagement connection.
Simplistically … our objective isn’t to make employees happy … it is to make them care.
And how do you make them care? You show them they, and what they do, is valued and has value.
And once someone understands they have value and what they do has value?
They are happy. In other words. Happiness is a byproduct of value.
The difficulty is that managers enthusiastically promote happiness in a well intended, but blind attempt, to overcome the real employee value issues … basically ignoring the underlying root of the ‘they are not as happy as I want.’ <or … “dammit! … I need to make them happier so they can be more frickin’ productive !!”>
In addition <the first one> … because the efforts are misdirected, or misguided, the enthusiastic efforts typically exacerbate the root issues.
In addition <the second one>.
The enthusiastic ‘generate happiness’ efforts are grounded in a mish mash of psychology of motivation and engagement theory <depending on who is peddling what> but basically you may get threads of karma, sports, health & nutrition, how to have fun, tune in to tune out, lots of donuts, Buddhism, flow psychology with a good dose of The Secret.
In addition <the last one>.
In general all the enthusiastic efforts seem to assume there is one ideal way of Life <and people>. Someone wrote somewhere that the ‘ideal employee’ is hardworking, happy, healthy and with wealth.
The next issue, beyond assuming everyone has the same ‘ideal destination’, is that because motivation mumbo jumbo is so intangible all these enthusiastic efforts are next to impossible to measure.
Uh oh.
We are in the midst of an outcome driven and measurable or ‘not measurable is a waste’ business generation. Everyday managers aspire to tangible … uhm … like attaching productivity … because that is what they get measured on and that is what makes them feel comfortable.
I chuckle as I write this … because all this mean is that management can go to some fairly absurd levels to actually measure happiness and engagement “productivity”.
I understand it is a weird spot this manufacturing happiness business is in … most managers, without any hard formula on how to generate happiness, are stuck with efforts and programs and initiatives which are implemented with the best of intentions but are assessed by “you know it when you see it” <that would also suggest a lack of objectivity>. And that is where engagement gets even trickier and harder <as if I haven’t made it sound horribly easy to do the wrong things> for most managers.
We know unhappy workers are unproductive workers. But it is actually not just about individuals but rather groups … and individuals.
Therefore managers have to learn how to talk to a combination of individual employees as well as cohorts of employees if they wanted to increase engagement and ultimately extract greater productivity from them.
They also have to understand the unique psychological properties of social groups to increase engagement … and how to incentivize happiness … and, unfortunately, that is clearly not as simple to break down to an individual incentive.
I say that because it is a business organizational behavior truth that a thriving, transparent and collaborative group identity can do far more for an employee’s happiness than almost anything else.
Well.
If you buy into that and agree the group or cohort drives happiness then you have to take a moment and think about this one guy, a business happiness guru named entrepreneur Tony Hsieh, who argues that the most successful businesses are those which deliberately and strategically nurture happiness throughout their organizations. He proposes that businesses should employ chief happiness officers to ensure that nobody escapes workplace happiness.
Oh.
He also proposed firing the 10% unhappiest employees so that the remaining 90% will be freed up to be happy <and more productive>.
What a bunch of bullshit. And bad bullshit advice <give him a donut & ask him to leave>.
Let me be very clear.
I am not opposed to happy employees. I am a huge proponent of what other people call work-life balance … although I actually believe from a pragmatic business perspective it is actually assessing different types of work, work energy investment, work fatigue and recuperation.
I do recognize employee fatigue or stress and the corollary … recuperation.
And I do recognize we have been talking about this topic & concept for quite some time:
==
Hans Selye, an Austrian doctor, recognized that what engineers saw as “wear and tear” in, say, a bridge, was the same problem as what he had termed “General Adaptation Syndrome” in the human body. General Adaptation Syndrome was effectively an indicator of the “rate of wear and tear in the body.” In the aftermath of World War II, he re-christened the syndrome as “stress.”
==
I understand people wear out and they not only get physically fatigued they also get mentally fatigued. And I understand it must be methodically addressed.
What I am not a huge proponent of is manufacturing happiness or engagement and the corollary to the manufacturing attitude … tracking analyzing and monitoring happiness <like it is a production line>. In fact … I am not a proponent I think it’s bullshit.
This is the old late 1800’s science management style of worker performance <ergonomic fatigue studies> … just now being applied to happiness rather than labor efficiency.
We are trying to not only manufacture happiness but we are also trying to make the intangible tangible so that managers can assess effectiveness <and report it I assume>.
Anyway. I think manufacturing happiness is business bullshit. You want people engaged. You want people involved. You want people committed. And , yes, I understand that money plays a role but if people find value in what they do … and you show them you understand their value … money has a tendency to follow rather than drive terms in an engagement model.
To conclude.
While this may sound too philosophical for a business environment … the threads within the following philosophical resonate with creating an engaged employee base.
—
“People inflict pain on others in the selfish pursuit of their happiness or satisfaction.
Yet true happiness comes from a sense of peace and contentment, which in turn must be achieved through the cultivation of altruism, of love and compassion, and elimination of ignorance, selfishness, and greed.”
=
Dalai Lama
—-
In the end … employee engagement is not about happiness or manufacturing happiness … it is about finding self-value, team value and organizational value.
And sometimes it is about eliminating shit <mental and physical> to free up the attitude you desire.
All I can suggest is that when self-value, team value and organizational value are aligned then ignorance, selfishness and greed tend to be pushed off to the side and productivity increases <and everyone is happy>.
I am not suggesting this is easy … but it is the objective.
“The most successful organizations in the world are the ones who work together, play together, and get messy together.”
=
Jeanne Malnati
–
——————–
Well.
Life may be messy … outcomes may be uncertain and people, particularly in business, can certainly be irrational <at times>.
But pets are … well … they clean up the mess for a pet owner.
I thought about that today.
I was reminded today of how messy business can be.
Messy in terms of just getting good shit done.
It’s mostly messy because … well … people are messy. Messy in terms of how we interact. Messy in terms of not knowing what we are good at … and sometimes not standing up for what we really are good at. Messy in terms of inconsistent communication. Messy in terms of selective listening. Messy in terms of avoiding conflict.
That may sound like a shitload of messiness … but people naturally make business messy <note: and gobs of money & time is invested to make businesses less messy>.
Even people with good intentions can create messiness.
<i know i have>
Yes.
Even good people.
I enjoyed a force of nature person … for the force of good.
I endured a force of nature with good intentions … and less than good behavior.
I encountered an essential force of good within a business … who doesn’t have the ‘nature’ part of the ‘force’ DNA but is still an essential force with which the business prospers.
I was emboldened with a sense that even good organizations with good products and good people and a good idea … can be messy … and still be good.
But.
I also saw how messiness encroached into the good fiber of a business. And while it happens, just as shit happens, that is painful.
Which then reminded me that while I absolutely embrace the messiness of working within a business … it was also one of the times I missed having a pet.
Huh?
We all work in messiness.
Maybe not all days … and most of us endure stretches which … well … stretch us and in some form or fashion the business messiness bleeds into our Life and makes it messy.
And it sucks.
But every day a pet owner comes home to a pet who knows nothing about the mess … just that you are there.
Everything about a pet and their caring is clean – it is unequivocal, unwavering and, surprisingly, often insightful toward your moods.
They accept your bad & good equally.
And I wish more pet –related companies recognized this beautiful value they provide and quit beating s over the head with funny animals or quality of ingredients and did something that made us sit forward in our chairs and then turn and look at our pet with new eyes of care.
So.
Because I am me … and what I do is offer solutions … this is what I would do.
I wrote this idea back in February 2010 on the enlightened conflict site the day I received the death certificate for Tigger, my border collie, in the mail.
–
===
–
The set up
<or what everyone else gets wrong>
If I had the opportunity to create a campaign for pet adoption or the wonders of owning a pet I would use my experience with Tigger to create the campaign. I don’t mind what has been done so far. The adoption campaign using Sarah McLachlan’s song was nice in a heart wrenching way.
But.
I still believe it misses the mark (at least from a current owner’s perspective).
Owning a pet is truly a maddening joy not just heart wrenching.
The tug of war between who is the master of the relationship can drive you through the roof and yet the moments of companionship are overwhelmingly rewarding.
And through it all it is the pet that dictates the relationship.
For it is in their loyalty and devotion that we pet owners will step up to the plate time and time again to speak out for how much having a pet can add to your life.
====
=
The solution
Here is what I would do.
I would build a campaign from the perspective of the pet (I will use my Tigger as a reference point).
And I have the song.
Throughout this song envision everything from a border collie’s perspective (or your own pet which is the true test of a campaign).
It is in his or her voice talking to you (the owner or prospective owner).
You are getting a glimpse of what they see in you and their lives as a partner in life with you.
It includes the moments when they are straining at the edge of your patience and you are sharp with them.
The moment when he was at the edge of the field wanting to chase that one tantalizing squirrel and yet you called him back.
The moment when he lost sight of you and panicked … barking … not seeing you or hearing your response <whew … pet owners know that sound of ‘where are you’ in their tone>.
The moments you had to leave him alone for a long day at work and he sits there staring at the door awaiting your return.
And the moments of joy in togetherness.
You know in their heads they have to believe it could be easier but in their love and devotion to you (their owner) they will walk through fire for you and to be with you if you need them.
So.
The song is Ginny Owens “If you want me To.”
A beautiful song. Probably one of the most underrated love songs of all time (although I believe it is truly about her relationship with God written after her trials & tribulations with finding a job).
“All the people we call ‘geniuses’ are men and women who somehow escaped having to put that curious, wondering child in themselves to sleep.”
=
Barbara She
———-
být sama sebou
–
<Czech>:
be yourself
——–
Ok.
Let me tell you what I think a genius is.
The great contextual thinkers.
Even more genius?
They have figured out being yourself is the key to being a great contextual thinker <because today’s world is not particularly kind to those whose main skill is putting random disparate pieces together>.
Regardless.
These are the everyday brilliant people we know.
Uhm.
And, yes, I truly mean the ones we know.
I say that because I am not talking about the Harvard MBA or the Rhodes Scholar or even the Mensa member geniuses … not the academic smarts titled folk <albeit I would imagine most of them are brilliant in some form or fashion> … but the true geniuses.
The common everyday people who are also contextual thinkers. The ones who put ideas together that make you say ‘holy shit that is a good idea’ <and “I have no idea how to make it happen” it in your head at exactly the same time>.
We cannot undervalue these people.
Now.
As for the ‘being yourself’ aspect.
In my experience … most of these everyday genius type people are flawed in some way … which makes it easy for us to ignore them … and incredibly difficult for them to accept themselves and, hence, be who they are.
We tend to ignore them in their flawedness and struggle to accept their skills. We tend to shove them in some corner and leave them alone to their own wacky devices.
Which is a little odd <in a way> because these geniuses are actually almost useless independently.
Huh?
Yup.
They have more in some ways … less in others … and when integrated into some ‘together’ group … well … they not only become more than enough they become ‘more.’ And, yet, we assess them based on flaws and ignore them as great contextual thinkers.
We far too often slot great thinkers into random niches of ‘here is what they are good at’ or ‘too flawed to be the ideal employee or teammate.’
Geniuses are actually the best team players you can find.
Uhm.
But maybe not under the traditional team player definition.
They may not like other people <a lot>, they may not always work well with everyone, they may chafe people <because their genius is basically all about screwing with other people’s ideas and roles>.
———
“Because you never had much and I probably had even less, but what we had together was more than enough.”
=
it was enough until it wasn’t
—
Regardless.
Where geniuses have their largest issues is actually with ‘being yourself.’
I get asked to write about this a lot.
I almost always begin with understanding yourself … and understanding consequences.
—–
“You will always be too much of something for someone: too big, too loud, too soft, too edgy.
If you round out your edges, you lose your edge.”
——-
Geniuses struggle with this.
Mainly, I imagine, because they know they are flawed.
Flaws are disconcerting … but interesting.
A genius likes the edge and hates the edge.
It takes a shitload of strength to accept the flaws … and accept the edge.
I thought of this the other day when I read a quote from Hillary Clinton:
==
“I’m a proud woman. I’m not stupid; I know I should do more to suck up to the press. I know it confuses people when I change my hairdos.
I know I have to compromise.
But I’m just not going to.
I’m a complex person and they’re just going to have to live with that. I’m used to winning, and I intend to win on my own terms.”
== ——
Well.
Win on my own terms.
This may be one of the most difficult Life lessons to learn.
Most of us every day schmucks suck at figuring this out erring on the side of too much and too little at exactly the moments when the former should be the latter and the latter should be the former.
And that is the genius of geniuses.
They get the Life formula righter while offering the contextual thinking which we all need.
They get it right while wanting what is right in the moment. And what is right is simple conceptually – something that is undeniable and touches either people or ‘the moment’ <which inevitably impacts people>.
—–
“Don’t you just want to make something that lives forever?
That touches the core of every person that hears it?”
==
Jared Leto
<Artifact>
—
I just wrote about Evil Plans.
I am not sure the geniuses’ we know truly have an Evil Plan of their own …. I tend to believe they just like screwing with other people’s plans.
They see that plans are good but … well … they are good as long as you don’t ignore everything else going on around you. Because inevitably a great plan is defined by what it ends up looking like in hindsight <the rear view mirror> and the attitude and emotion which actually made it happen.
Great plans revolve around those who have ability.
Yeah … yeah … yeah … I buy the importance of team and the fact that one person actually makes it ‘happen’ … but let’s not forget that often one person can actually make it ‘not happen.’
The geniuses I know have an undiminished and unbreakable loyalty to doing the right thing … which is often about breaking up other people’s ideas and putting them back together again in a different way.
Oops.
That is not always conducive to ‘collaboration’ or some type of ‘being part of the team’ in spirit.
And that is where, the geniuses I know, well … být sama sebou … have learned to ‘be yourself.’
——-
“I don’t need anyone to hold me,
I can hold my own.”
—
Ani DiFranco
—
We see these geniuses every day … shit … we know many of these geniuses.
Most of them actually lurk in jobs & careers completely unsuited for their ability.
Yup.
They do so for one of two reasons:
<a> society has convinced them this skill they have is not as valuable as some specialty or more measurable output driven task
<b> they have not learned to accept themselves and the ability they have.
Genius or not … many <many> people end up in situations, careers, relationships, experiences … in which they are completely unsuited for.
In general … being yourself is hard … if not just a tricky path to navigate.
In general … being an everyday type genius is difficult … if not just a tricky path to navigate.
———
“What is so wrong with us that we rush into situations to which we are manifestly unsuited, which will hurt us and others?
Why are we given emotions which we cannot control and which move in exact contradiction to what we really want?
We are walking conflicts, internal battles on legs.”
=
Marian Keyes
—
And because it can be difficult & tricky we end up being in situations in which we are manifestly unsuited.
I think many of us would be surprised <if we actually thought about it> how many people are actually in quasi-ill suited situations.
I think many of us would be surprised <if we actually thought about it> how many great contextual thinkers, the geniuses in my eyes, are actually in quasi-ill suited situations.
Anyway.
All I know is that the true every day genius is one with the skill of a great contextual thinker and has learned to be themselves.
A culture always looking backward, toward the joys of a vanishing youth, cheats everyone: depending on your age, the “best years” are either an increasingly distant memory, or they will be, all too soon.
In a culture that celebrates growing up, by contrast, everybody has them to look forward to – unless they’re already enjoying them.
=
Oliver Burkeman
—————–
Well. I am an unequivocal supporter of today’s young, youth and young adults. Yes. I believe our future is in good hands <assuming we older folk don’t fuck them, or it, up>.
I am also an unequivocal basher of today’s older generations particularly in business leadership. I believe our future is slower to come to fruition because of older people reluctant to let go of the past and ‘how it used to be done.’ That said. I am an unequivocal believer in the joys and passion and benefits of adulthood.
I think far too often the young look at adulthood, flippantly, as ‘my future sucking.”
I think far too often older people perpetuate this belief by vocally bitching about how ‘this sucks’<and do and say some fairly absurd things to maintain some semblance of ‘youth’>.
While the responsibilities of adulthood can sometimes appear daunting <especially if you compare it to youth’s most basic responsibilities – go to school & don’t get thrown in jail>, I believe we should be celebrating adulthood – all of it <age, appearance, wisdom, etc>.
And it, frankly, is not that hard.
I could simply state “if I knew then what I know now” as the prime exhibit for how adulthood has shaped and improved that which we were in our youth … but I will suggest we think about adulthood more.
I sometimes believe we confuse the messy complexities of adulthood with only ‘bad.’
Complexity is not bad … it just is. It is a mix of good, bad, fun, sad, disappointments and successes.
Uhm. But complexity has a tendency to make anyone LOOK bad.
Therefore. What becomes slightly ridiculous in this whole discussion is that the young look at grownups as a group of ridiculous, ill-equipped for today’s world, stagnant & stale stubborn assholes … and the grownups feel the same way <except the asshole part>.
We feel that way, and appear that way, because adulthood is complex. It is a mishmash of individual responsibility, independence & personal choice change clashing with collective shared responsibility, dependence & system choice change. We seek simplicity therefore are constantly attacking adulthood Life with formulas to do and ‘ways to simplify our Life’ … and yet they are simply stopgaps to the onslaught of a complex life. And all the time we are seeking ways to simplify … we adults continue scoffing at the young … uhm … yet emulating the young <trying to recapture some nebulous thing we believe we have lost>.
We look silly <we adults>.
We look silly not admitting life is complex and in its complexity, while harrowing at times, it is a joy of multiple experiences and a series of blood pumping moments.
We look even sillier trying to reach back to youth and, well, everything associated with youth.
Yes. I believe that. And I thought about that as I scanned an article about “Why Grow Up? Subversive Thoughts for an Infantile Age”by Susan Neiman. She makes the case that our youth-fixated society is a symptom of something worth worrying about: we’ve defined growing up as nothing but a question of decline.
“Being grown-up is widely considered to be a matter of renouncing your hopes and dreams, accepting the limits of the reality you are given, and resigning yourself to a life that will be less adventurous, worthwhile and significant than you had supposed when you began it.”
Whew. Resigning yourself to a life … anything that begins with those words sends a shiver down my spine. What do I believe? Do not go gently into the good night… those are the words adulthood should embrace.
And, yet, it seems like we <we actually being adults> have created a world in which growing up is something nobody would choose if given a choice.
We suggest the best years of your life are with the young.
We suggest that dreams are for the young.
We suggest impossibility is possible with the young.
We suggest ‘your whole life is ahead of you’ to the young.
Shit.
Who wouldn’t choose being young if we offered all that?
Aw. What crap. That’s just bullshit. Adulthood & getting older is awesome if you can get your head out of your ass.
Life isn’t about the innocence of childhood and ‘dreams of what could be’ it is about doing, experiencing and getting the most out of what is presented to you.
Life is about ‘not going gently’ and it is certainly NOT about looking backwards.
Life is about … well … control … personal control over personal choices and personal destiny <or fate>. We need to remember youth was maybe a 20/80 experience. 20% personal choice and individuality and 80% of Life dictated or controlled. Adulthood is the reverse … 80% personal choice and individuality and making decisions with regard to your own destiny while 20% of Life around you is constructing obstacles to what you want.
That said. Adults today have some wacky perspectives on adulthood.
They demand respect. They demand opportunity. They demand money. They demand fairness <yet demand ‘what I deserve’ at exactly the same time>. They demand perfection.
And if they don’t get what they demand?
They get angry.
Far too many older adults are too busy being angry to understand that adulthood is great. Many adults get so angry they refuse to grow up seeking solace in the trappings of youth <ironically revisiting a time in Life when “I was angry at older people”>.
We are simply exchanging today’s anger for the simplicity of the anger we had in youth.
——-
“Refusing to grow up may be a form of rebellion. But really growing up could be a revolution.”
Susan Neiman
——————-
This is crazy.
Fucking crazy.
Where the hell did we get the idea that youth is the best time of our life?
What the hell was so great about youth that we have decided to idealize youth?
For some reason we have decided that adulthood means you need to renounce hoping for something better … and dreaming or pursuing dreams.
For some reason we have decided that accepting the limits of your current reality is a given … you need to be resigned to it <it cannot be changed>.
For some reason, because of those things I just stated, we have accepted so many ‘less than’ thoughts associated with adulthood that we just look … well … sad and pathetic.
Geez. Why would any young person aspire to that?
<they wouldn’t>
Why would any adult embrace an adulthood that looks like that?
<they wouldn’t>
Adulthood doesn’t mean you are finished growing up.
======
“ It is not fair to treat people as if they are finished beings. Everyone is always becoming and unbecoming.”
Kathleen Winter
======
For some reason we seem to think adulthood means you have to stop being a work in progress and instead ‘stop moving around and stick with something and be the best you can be.’
Why does one have to be exclusive of the other?
<they don’t>
————–
“For in every adult there dwells the child that was, and in every child there lies the adult that will be.”
John Connolly
———–
Being an adult & adulthood is all about becoming someone and something … and unbecoming someone and something. We are constantly developing and undeveloping and we continue to survive the missteps and step backs and figure out where & how to excel with momentary glimpses of what ‘could be’ … and that is what adulthood is all about.
That is the model of adulthood which we should be providing youth so that we can take back the greatness of adulthood and stop thinking youth is so great.
————
“Don’t you find it odd that when you’re a kid, everyone, all the world, encourages you to follow your dreams. But when you’re older, somehow they act offended if you even try.”
Ethan Hawke
————
I find it odd adults discard the great aspects of adulthood and gladly embrace the not-so-great aspects of adulthood.
I find it odd adults confuse consistency with stagnancy in how they live their lives.
I find it odd adults enjoy looking backwards more than looking forward.
I find it odd because while I love today’s youth … I love adulthood.
Simply.
Adulthood is much much better than okay. It is much better because while some call it the burden of responsibility I call it the freedom to enable my own destiny.
You do with your destiny what you want … you can get angry if it doesn’t happen the way you want but suffice it to say … adulthood is great because it is YOUR time to make it happen. And I wish adults would reclaim adulthood and let the youth have their youth.
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
—————
Whew.
Every time I see an article like “The truth about adverts: selling the White Woman™” it almost feels like my head is going to explode.
Do I think advertising has perpetuated some bad myths/beliefs/messages with regard to women?
Sure. Maybe.
Do I think that advertising is a reflection of some societal norms <good & bad>?
Sure. Maybe.
Do I think that advertising perpetuates racism or fosters ignorant perceptions & attitudes with regard to certain segments of the population?
Sure. Maybe … well … indirectly … but certainly not intentionally <or directly>.
Do I think that advertising utilizes white people too much?
Sure. Maybe.
<but remember most businesses are still run by old white guys and most population & buying wealth/dollars, in the US at least, still resides within the white population … and regardless of your skin color you like to see yourself – or your aspirational you – in the things you buy>
Look <part 1>.
Advertising and marketing 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.
No shit sold … no money for advertising.
This means that if I represent a product and its main buying audience is white, male & blue collar … 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 that $1000 is spent on selling shit and not ‘bettering the world.’
Simplistically … you sell, market & advertise to the people who buy.
Simplistically … you sell to the people who buy in the most effective way that they will actually buy.
Someone 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 create … a business makes the decision on whether what they create will actually be produced and put in front of people.
Look <part 2>.
Truth is appreciated but aspirational sells.
And aspirations are tricky things in our minds … while we look around at all the messages around us and tell ourselves we are too clever to fall for this kind of media manipulation … we still walk around going about our lives disappointed in ourselves in some way … some even hating some aspect of ourself … both of which motivate us aspirationally to improve ourselves and better ourselves … even in some really wacky ways.
It can be embarrassing … it can make you furious … but the pressures the media and marketing puts on us makes us do some fairly wacky things.
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 thinks those creating advertising thinks about shit that advertising people never think 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, smart, insightful or blatantly uninsightful.
Perception is not reality <in this case>.
The perception is that advertising makes shit up, makes stupid vapid shit and says nothing <as much as possible> and try and make people feel something <to sell>.
Nothing could be further from the truth <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 form or fashion>.
===
reminder on how difficult finding a unique selling proposition is
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>.
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.
Now.
That sounds awesome … but the hack advertising people use that last ‘not please everyone’ thought 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.’
And 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>?
Advertising should be smart and not talk down t 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.
And it all has to be done with an eye toward ‘decommoditizing’ or being distinct in some meaningful way.
This is imperative because in research consumers far too often say that there is very little difference in brands within a category.
Advertising cannot be dull and uninspired … 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 sacred cow imagery’ ad therefore it needs to be seen less for the same effect.
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.
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.
Regardless.
I am not defending advertising but I am also suggesting an article that generalizes how advertising sucks and is misguided … is also not true.
In the end.
I will not argue that all advertising is good.
A lot of it is shit.
But I will argue that good advertising people, not hacks, are smart and tend to create smart insightful educating communication pieces that avoid the trite and stereotyping imagery.
I would also argue that businesses, and business decision makers, are great smart advertising’s worst enemy.
Much of the worst of worst advertising is driven by businesses who are either one of two things:
– They are sure they know what works and has to be done <let’s call them ‘sacred cow lovers’>
– Research tells them what to do <and research always leans toward what has been done and what people already know>
Ok.
I am done.
Last thing I know … any article that begins with “the truth about adverts” is at best a partial truth and at its worst … a non truth.
“If there’s no chocolate in Heaven, I’m not going.”
=
Jane Seabrook
————–
–
“It’s not just what you say that stirs people.
It’s the way that you say it.”
=
Bill Bernbach
–
———————-
“Strength is the capacity to break a Hershey bar into four pieces with your bare hands – and then eat just one of the pieces.”
=
Judith Viorst
———————-
Ok.
This is about advertising … chocolate advertising as a matter of fact.
Oh.
It is also about bad advertising for a great premium chocolate product.
Why is it bad advertising?
David Ogilvy stated my issue today the best: “There are very few products which do not benefit from being given a first class ticket through life.”
It is a premium chocolate, Dove, which asks us to take an economy class ticket in Life.
Now.
To be clear.
Common everyday chocolate … the lower end cost stuff <lower priced but still tastes great> … kind of gets it communicationwise … they are playful and entertaining and market themselves as part of everyday fun and everyday people.
But premium chocolate?
Yikes. Ok. Double yikes.
It’s kind of like they lose their mind over thinking the psychological attitudes tied <tenuously I may add> to chocolate and the things they want to attach to their brand.
Ok.
Therein lies a huge challenge.
Everyone who thinks about ‘brand building’ <which is a crazy & bad topic in and of itself> needs to be very careful about what they ‘build with.’ Brand builders tend to start building with things they want rather than things that are.
Look.
I am all for aspirational … but some pragmatism is healthy.
Which leads me to chocolate.
And Dove.
First.
While it seems like there are gobs of chocolate brands and choices most of the products that people see are really manufactured by the same two companies.
Milky Way, Twix, Three Musketeers, Dove, and M&M are all Mars products.
Kit Kat, Reese’s, Whoppers, Almond Joy, Mounds, Kisses and a whole shitload of others are Hershey products.
On a side note … in doing some research I found out a fascinating factoid about Mars & Hershey:
———————-
Hershey and Mars have a long history between them – actually allies before becoming big rivals in the industry.
In The Emperors of Chocolate: Inside the Secret World of Hershey and Mars, Joël Glenn Brenner details the little known trading of information between the two companies during World War II which changed the chocolate landscape forever. Hershey sent technology and information to Mars (for M&M’s) in order to help them manufacture for the military, but Mars “exploited the opportunity.
“Few people outside the industry are aware of this part of M&M’s success. Neither company is quick to advertise it. But the truth is, the histories of these two industry rivals are closely intertwined,” and goes on to make the bold claim that, “one could argue that Mars would not have succeeded without Hershey, and vice versa”
==
The Emperors of Chocolate: Inside the Secret World of Hershey and Mars
Joël Glenn Brenner
———–
Anyway.
I will invoke the Pareto Principle … suffice it to say about 80% of what is sold is made by 2 companies.
This is called “the illusion of choice.”
The next part of the ‘illusion of choice’ is that while there are some quality differences <albeit they are mostly taste/texture differences> the largest part of price differentiation is created by how a brand chooses to market and package the chocolate.
After quality packaging has been designed … this puts a lot of pressure, or heavy lifting, on the marketing & advertising to drive foot traffic <thru attitudes> to the package.
For example … M&M’s and Dove Chocolates are both manufactured by Mars but Dove is branded as a smoother, elegant, high end chocolate and M&M’s are more of an everyday chocolate, good for any type of person or event, with a lower price point. The packaging reflects that decision as well as the marketing we see.
Ok.
To the horrendous Dove cranberries tv commercial.
In the ad there is this ‘mysterious woman’ … conveniently with a bag of Dove Chocolate Real Cranberries … who leads a man on a sexually charged scavenger hunt through a library.
In the end he finally catches up to her … they sit … and, of course, they share the less than ordinary pleasure of Dove chocolates with real cranberries with each other <after that it is all your imagination …>.
This is crap. I mean this is really shitty advertising <for an amazingly good chocolate>.
I am embarrassed for the chocolate itself.
So women have to be mysterious … and men have to pursue … and chocolate has to be romantic and associated with couples and … well … what crap.
This advertisement is utter garbage.
Dove should be embarrassed.
I hate stereotyping.
I hate trite.
I hate mindless drivel.
How they think this advertising either :
a> Lures people into buying Dove
b> Enhances their brand in any way
… is beyond me <and my pea like brain>.
How a Dove chocolate-covered cranberry commercial depicting a woman seductively leaving clues around a library so that a man can ultimately discover her eating chocolate will build some meaningful mystique <and more importantly … value> into the Dove brand seems ludicrous to me.
Plus.
They must think we are stupid.
The Mystery section sign? Really ??!!??
As if we didn’t know she was trying to be ‘mysterious’?
In a library? Really ??!!??
So that we know a Dove chocolate eater is a reader and hangs out in libraries?
<note: if she was truly high end wouldn’t she be in some swanky exclusive bookstore and not some random public library?>
Using clues <phrases> like … “mystery”, “take the leap”, “free your mind”, “live your fantasies”, and “heating up”? Really ??!!!???
As if we need everything spelled out to us?
What crap.
How about describing and depicting the chocolate-eating experience without relying on seduction and romance?
How about implying we eaters of premium chocolate are smart enough to know its good shit and not have to try and use some imagery that demeans us intellectually?
How about saying something about Dove that stirs us … makes us truly feel something.
For god’s sake … if I can’t do that with truly great tasting chocolate, like Dove, what the hell can I do it for?
I am not offering any solutions today.
Well.
Ok … I will.
1. I could argue that you could use the first quote I used upfront –If there’s no chocolate in Heaven, I’m not going … and create a pretty fabulous fun communication piece relevant to the audience in an elegant high end way.
2. I could argue that you could use the 3rd quote I used upfront … Strength is the capacity to break a Hershey bar into four pieces with your bare hands – and then eat just one of the pieces … and create a pretty fabulous fun communication piece relevant to the audience in an elegant high end way.
It seems like both of those off-the-cuff ideas could create a pretty fabulous tv commercial which taps into the inner insight of chocolate lovers>..
Look.
All I am suggesting is that premium brands deserve premium advertising & marketing. They deserve smart insightful and thoughtful advertising and marketing.
As Bill Bernbach says … the advertising deserves to be something that stirs people. Say something about Dove chocolate that makes me feel something … truly FEEL something.
To be clear.
Dove has even tried borrowed ‘elegant’ interest:
——
Dove with Audrey Hepburn <kind of>
Note:
I said kind of because apparently they used a stand in and thru computer recreated Audrey Hepburn
————-
Whew.
Borrowed interest is always tricky … really tricky when the borrowed is a dead person.
This attempt doesn’t really work either.
Regardless.
I know what they are trying to do:
– Associate the chocolate with elegance <thru Hepburn>
– Make chocolate desirable <thru Hepburn>
– Make this brand of chocolate ‘okay to buy & eat’ <if Audrey Hepburn eats it than it is okay>
They are all viable things to say and suggest.
But, geez, could you have possibly done it in a way that kind of makes me feel something other than ‘interesting execution’?