~synthesis~

spoiler alert

To be an effective spoiler, you must lure people in and then do the bait and switch by thoroughly turning the tables on them. You have to be smarter than people expect.

It's impossible over the last few days to read/watch/listen to any kind of news without hearing about Sarah Palin, her book, her Oprah interview, and how she's still just a honest, God-fearing, down-to-earth, anti-socialism hockey grandmother.

The Republican Party, despite her rather harsh words about the McCain campaign seems cautiously supportive. There is no doubt that since she was nominated as John McCain's running mate, the heartland has turned out in droves for her; and if the Republicans are to win more House seats during the midterms  or mount a viable challenge in 2012, they will need the heartland to turn out in droves for their nominee.

Ms Palin is being understandably coy about her intentions (other than to help elect Republicans in 2010, and promote her book). Polls show that well over half (59%) of Republicans and 21% of Independents have a favorable opinion of her, and I imagine close to that percentage believe that she'd make a good president. In her own words, her people are "everyday, hard-working Americans who want government back on their side."

For someone who has been as contentious as she has, whose family has had as many ups and down as hers has, this is either a remarkable testament to her star-power, or a serious indictment of the American voters. What you can't argue is her ability to draw a crowd, get free publicity and media coverage, and raise funds for candidates she supports.

So what of all this? What's the political upshot? Who's most afraid of Palin?

I think it's the leaders of the Republican Party who are most scared. And if the Democrats are thinking at all, they're secretly rooting for her. You might be wondering if I've gone off the bend, or is this just a typo?

What if in 2011 as the Republican leadership game begins to heat up, Sarah Palin, having supported the party during the midterms, resigns from the Republican party (citing concerns about how establishment they are, reiterating their screw-ups during the last presidential election, and punctuating all this with her real worry, which is their centrist, almost liberal views on key issues (she may not even have to name these issues))?

Yes, Sarah Palin will resign. In her speech she will say that since the mid-terms she has assembled a team who like her are just plain, ordinary Americans, and raised a large-enough war chest to finance her own campaign without the help of the Republican party.

She will then announce her candidacy for President of the United States as an Independent with the wholehearted support of the Tea Party, the NRA, much of the religious right, and potentially Fox News (maybe she'll also announce Sean Hannity is her choice for Vice President). Thus will "Palin - for the People" be born.

Like Ross Perot before her, she will split the Republican base, earning about 20% of the popular vote, and giving a landslide victory to the Democratic ticket.

I don't believe she is this smart, but then again, I didn't just resign my job and get a $7million book deal.

corporate therapists

Are you a fanatic about a sports team? If so, chances are you are among hundreds if not thousands who share that same passion and zeal. When you are with your "kind" (at the arena or stadium or in a bar), it's like a feeding frenzy. The crowd is a self-fulfilling prophecy; it reveres those who have been fans forever; who were actually there when XXXX did YYYY to ZZZZ; those who know all the stats and the history; and who have been there through thick and thin. Newcomers are viewed skeptically until they "prove" their loyalty, and "woe betide anyone who walks into our house wearing that [hated team X] shirt!"

If you're an "outsider" who happens into a bar at game-time, having a drink or a meal can be a rather odd experience. The intensity level during critical moments, the superstition, the insider lingo, the "us" and "them" stuff, etc. are certainly freakish, and may put you off that team forever.

Will you be able to find the truth about that team's ability/potential/etc. from those in that room? In Seth Godin's post about true believers and the truth, he said: "the truth of the market is that the products and services that win ... are rarely the products and services that are beloved without reservation by the true believers." Well said!

When I'm looking to buy a new product, the research I do online is equally about its capabilities (features, specifications, etc.) and about finding people who didn't like it, to understand what I'm really getting into. It's always easy to find those that really liked it, and who with their cognitive dissonance, want others to vindicate their decision, by joining the "team" and buying. I want the critic as well.

Cults are formed by those who blindly pursue a value proposition that may or may not be real. Their belief in the proposition overrides their ability to see clearly.

There's this interesting dynamic in "viral" marketing - everyone searches for mavens to advocate their product, but the real successes are when the mavens are a surprise. When the people who like it are the ones that "shouldn't" or ones that once decried it. They're most "legitimate" and most convincing.

The most powerful champion for your product is always the convert and not the lifer. The lifer is only able to talk to other lifers - and let's face it they don't have to be sold to anymore.

If you want to expand the size of your pie, you have to reach those that don't share your passion. The ones you already have need a different level and type of service.

This type of myopia also affects corporations. If you've drunk the Kool-Aid to the point where your world-view is utterly tainted, you simply can NOT make good decisions. Your vestedness impedes you from seeing the truth about your product, your competitors, or your customers. It absolutely prevents you from acknowledging (or even recognizing) any disruptive forces.

Many organizations view employees who use competitors' products as traitors (drinking Coke as a Pepsi employee); I'm all for passionate employees that care deeply about what they do and where they work, but surely there's an inherent flaw in only surrounding yourself with lemmings and sycophants? Surely you don't want to dis your customers by decrying what they also use/buy? How will you ever adapt, evolve and be successful over time?

Give me the objective skeptic over the fanatic every day - she's the one that I want to listen to. I want to know how the outsider critically assesses what I have, how I market and sell it, and what I'm building next. More critically, I want that objective outsider to help de-tint my glasses so I can see my customers, my marketplace, and my future with clarity and truth.

In life, many people go to a therapist for this type of objective perspective; at work, this is more difficult. I've only met one true management consultant in my life - Peter Drucker - a person who did not color his views for anyone, and certainly did not shape his PowerPoint presentation to please the customer, and ensure future business by telling them exactly what they wanted to hear, with just that mild hint of edginess (like using a black background) to be "credible."

This might not matter so much with sports, which is mere entertainment. But it sure does matter with work, with life, with business...

Do you have Kool-Aid drinking requirements at your company? Are people "rewarded" for strict adherence to the religion? Do people get punished for "straying"? Do you really know what's going on outside your walls?

Who's your corporate therapist?

you had me at hello

This line (title) from Jerry Maguire is the holy grail of marketing. Seth Godin's blog about attention surplus made me ask myself: marketing tries to create awareness and consideration; but if people are exposed to increasing more messages, how do you break through - how do you get them at hello?

As Seth points out, there are a ton of free content channels out there, and bad marketers flood these outlets with generic "spray-marketing" content that likely yields much lower returns than traditional direct mail or advertising. People do it because it's perceived to be free, so what the hell. But, it's not free - it costs money to produce, it costs money to support and it costs money to respond to potentially spurious customers in the hopes of finding the real spenders. But there's an even higher cost - if you do it badly, there is a risk that your poor execution will be visible to millions, just like all those videos of dumb things people or companies do.

Treating your public "face" casually is never a good thing, and speaks volumes about your organization, its attitudes, and its commitment to its customers.

Seth talked about the attention drought. In the old days, there were very few channels to reach the individual consumer; if you had a successful one (really popular TV show, magazine, etc.), you were able to command a premium for advertising because people couldn't avoid the ads (Tivo + no remote controls), and you were much more likely (with a good ad) to create broad awareness. The market was hungry for it and would pay attention. Creativity trumped insight.

Today three things work against you - profusion of content, proliferation of channels, and easy tools to avoid consuming advertising. Add search engines to refine surfing and (if you're like me) the ability to ignore web ads, and most "traditional" marketing campaigns will struggle.

If in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king, then in the land of the sighted, the one-eyed marketer is lost.

To get me at hello is to give me what I want when I want it and how I want it. Google and other search engines have tried this, and initially I think it worked really well because it was new, there weren't that many advertisers, people devoted a little (not a lot) space to it on their pages, and it was a novelty (just like TV ads in the 50s). But now there's too many ads, it's obvious where they are on the page, and they're easy to ignore.

Great marketing is about really (really) understanding your audience, what they need and care about, and then providing them what they want with ideas, words, and images that mean something to them. A very smart communications consultant told me that more often than not, people communicate in ways that are meaningful to them but not their audiences. He said that great communicators care not at all about how it looks to the speaker, but rather whether the listener/reader/watcher got what they wanted out of it.

The Internet and search engines have made the Long Tail real; they've led to people being able to very precisely state their need and find what they want. I fear that marketers are still mistakenly led by traditional approaches and metrics that applied in the old days when BIG reach was key. They ignore the real hard work of precisely identifying, segmenting and understanding your target audience, being able to craft a message and offer in a way that implicitly resonates with that audience, and then finding the ideal medium with which to reach them.

Find them, know them, care about them, and they will care about you. That's how you get them at hello.

nerd-up!

There's a conversation happening between luminaries in American industry, major players in the American philanthropic scene, leaders in the American education system, and some very senior and "in-the-know" people in the state and federal governments to figure out ways to grow the number of STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics)-skilled graduates in the United States. Specifically, there aren't enough students in elementary and high school with an interest in STEM and there aren't enough university graduates in STEM to fill current and future open positions.

Let me start by saying that I don't believe in isolating any one (or one set of) disciplines - good learning must be holistic and serve the complete child. I can't learn science well and sacrifice communications skills (reading, writing, speaking, etc.); I can't learn engineering well and sacrifice creativity (music, sculpting, painting, etc.); I can't learn any STEM discipline without a good (really good) sense of art and crafts (carpentry, etc.).

Making this about one and not the other creates a bifurcation of the education system that is wrong and unfair. My good friend Larry has decided he'll focus his schools on STEAM for this very reason (science, technology, engineering, art and mathematics) - I could agree more + I love the idea of steAm:-)!!!

How about this:

Overarching goal: every student must achieve their greatest academic potential.

STEM-focused goal: America will double the number of American-educated, successful STEM employees by 2020.

Situation:

• The forecast for STEM jobs in ten years is almost double the current population of STEM employees (i.e. at least 80% growth in jobs in 10 years)
• American junior and high school students drop out of STEM disciplines at alarming rates
• Graduates in general are weak in STEM basics irrespective of major
• Students are daunted by the sciences, and aren't captivated by how interesting (and well-paid) jobs in the sciences can be; it's also noteworthy that students normally decide (explicitly or implicitly) an interest in STEM before they reach grade 7
• Employers have done an abysmal job of engaging students and compelling them with opportunities in their organizations
• Philanthropy alone cannot sustain any major social (or other) change (it's incredible at sparking things, but it's not forever)
• In the rest of the world, families and institutions value STEM graduates tremendously; students are encouraged by their peers, families, employers, etc. to get in that game, and get some of that coin; and the results in these countries (like Korea for example) are outstanding, and at a lower cost-per-student than America

Truths:

• Employers are motivated by the following: making money, hiring the best talent, looking good (image) - let's not waste time on any other incentives - help them with these three and you win, everything else is crap
• Students are motivated by the following: getting laid, making money, looking good - let's not waste time on any other incentives - help them with these three and you win - everything else is crap
• Parents are motivated by the following: getting the kids gainfully-employed, becoming burden-free empty-nesters, being financially solvent - ibid
• Teachers & Administrators are motivated by the following: being employed, teaching students, preserving status quo - ibid
• Governments are motivated by the following: getting elected, being perceived as doing good, getting re-elected - ibid

If we want all schools to improve their curriculum and performance, the most sustainable way to do this, is to get the parents (voters) to demand it and expect it. If you want scale and sustainability, this is the ONLY way to do it. If you can achieve this, the governing bodies who seek reelection will find a way to make it happen, and I argue, make it happen without additional funds.

This is a marketing problem - if the demand is created, and elected stakeholders start feeling it from their constituents, outcomes will occur.

Some might think this trivializes the problem, but I've never heard of organized ingenuity (seems like an oxymoron), or broad, sustained, grassroots change (outside of declarations of war or the like) happening just because one person (irrespective of how charismatic, powerful or visible they are) said it should.

The real goal is to make STEM sexy (dare I say: "STEAMy" = Science + Technology + Engineering + Art + Math = yeah baby!).

Sustained, societal change requires a broad from the bottom-up movement that changes culture and expectations.

Solution:

I think we need to create a whole new concept and movement in America - I'm calling it "MInternship" - a combination of mentoring and internships.

Today, most American STEM firms get R&D tax credits for doing all that nerd stuff. I want to change the rule for getting the tax credits. From now on (beginning with the 2010 tax year), in order to qualify for any R&D tax credits, 100% of your R&D staff must mentor a student in grades 6-12. Each mentee must also intern in your organization for at least one week during the school year (not in one go, plus it counts as community service for the student), and optionally for an additional two weeks during the summer break - paid experience.

But please let's not make this exclusive to STEM - why not open this up to all industries - if you want your R&D or operating tax credits, this is the new cost of doing business - involve the future in the present.

It is an amazing opportunity for employers to reach out, identify and nurture stars, eventually hire them, and of course get those tax credits. It's huge for students because they get to be engaged in reality, identify with people who are doing great work, learn, and realize that this could be their vocation.

We marry this with a marketing campaign where we showcase and applaud nerds (Iron Man and Hulk are two pretty cool nerds, and both got laid (well Hulk almost did)!), with creative uses of media - targeting both parents and students. This campaign is a myth-busters campaign - we want everyone to know that nerd-smarts are absolutely attainable irrespective of gender, demographics, whatever; and we especially want everyone to know that nerds get paid really well, and better on average than other professions.

This marketing campaign has to show parents how important it is for them to focus on their children's academic time as an investment in independence, and how a great education is the key to being a successful empty-nester.

Result:

It will take some time - say 5-6 years, but if done right, this is a sustained and totally scalable approach to growing the American nerd (and otherwise) population - by creating a desire in the American ethos for a better education that is more closely connected to employment. We are also addressing the needs of each of the audiences identified above.

The problem with it is that it doesn't fit well with bureaucrats and politicians because it doesn't demonstrate direct and substantive results in the first year. (Though I'd challenge you to name five government programs that have.) But the key is to find answers that will be pervasive and live for a long time.

It will also be daunting because it's whacky, there were no committees formed, we didn't hire expensive consultants, and there were no 500-page PowerPoint presentations developed that demonstrated blah, blah, blah.

Let's hope that that group of people above will come to a dramatic and divergent conclusion, rather than live up to a most primo nerd (Einstein)'s definition of insanity - doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

free at last?

Chris Anderson has sparked quite the debate with his latest book, Free (MSRP: $26.99(!)). Malcolm Gladwell wrote Priced to Sell, expressing skepticism about the book, Seth Godin responded with Malcolm is wrong, and Marc Cuban went on to draw the distinction between Free vs. Freely Distributed.

Chris, Malcolm, Seth and Marc are all brilliant and accomplished; as Seth pointed out, it's an amazing expression of "free" that we're able to read their words for free (except the actual book:-). We must celebrate that people like C, M, S & M freely share their ideas and more than that, actively engage in debate. This is a testament to one kind of free.

Evolving Business Models

Free (truly free) is rare. Unlike commoditization which is altogether common. For me, it centers on the business model. In high-tech it began with IBM - their model was superior customer service and sales. They prioritized the customer (mostly big, big organizations), were fully intimate with their priorities, industry, politics and people. There was truth in the statement "you never get fired for buying IBM." They always stood with you. They priced hardware steeply, but wrapped it in a cushion of service and support that was unequaled and highly valued.

Then came Microsoft - they prioritized the product and the channel. The built a partner community like no other, paid attention to independent application developers, who understood their end customer and built great applications that dragged Microsoft's "platform" technology along. Microsoft commoditized hardware - their platform software ran on a bunch of different gear, which meant that the customer could shop around for the best price, knowing that the "value" lay above the hardware in the software. This forced IBM to change its business model from hardware-biased to service focused.

Now we have Google - they turned the game on its ear brilliantly. Why make the customer pay at all? Let's make the end user the product, and sell access to it. Google's advertising approach turned both hardware and software into commodities (doesn't matter what kind of computer or browser or whatever is "underneath"). This is powerful, and why many hardware and traditional application or platform software companies are struggling.

It's ironic that success (to be pervasive and set the standard) leads to others copying you, the bar rising, a loss of differentiation, and a new addition to the ranks of commodity.

The big question is - what will commoditize Google?? In its heyday no-one believed IBM would be usurped. Similarly for Microsoft. It's not clear what follows Google - but you'd better believe someone will, yet again changing the game. IBM's model lasted for a couple of generations, Microsoft's for barely a generation; the pace is accelerating.

Mired in Paradigms

Sadly, each organization is/was so entrenched in their model that they dismissed the new entrant as spurious. Even when the new model had taken hold, the incumbents persisted in staying the course to extract every last drop of milk out of their cash cow. Despite being repeatedly kicked in the head, they still believed they were right and should not abandon what got them there.

What will threaten Google? Is it possible to commoditize or replace the ad-clicking consumer? Is there a new kind of channel? Will Google buck the trend and be the author of the change that out-modes their current model?

According to yesterday's Harvard's Daily Stat, the "Internet" (US numbers only) employs 1.2m people = $118 billion in wages and it drives $175 billion in direct transactions ($20b advertising + $85b retail txns + $70b to Internet service providers). 11% of the Internet business is advertising, a full 40% is for Internet access, and the balance (about half) is web-fronted purchases. While big, advertising is not #1. The massive majority (89%) is the consumer buying things.

The Next Model

Google's genius was finding a way to transfer the direct payment obligation away from the end consumer and putting it in the hands of the advertiser (consumers do pay for advertising, it's just hidden). What would happen if people stopped clicking on ads? What would happen if advertisers found the ROI of web-based ads to be lower than alternate channels? Would that be the end of "free"??

I will pay for something I value. I might take it if it's free, but it has "free value" vs. real value to me. If I had to pay, I probably wouldn't take it.

In his article, Gladwell referenced consumers choosing a 15cent chocolate vs. the 1cent alternative; when they lowered both prices by a penny, they chose the now free chocolate. Is that more about convenience than value? Since you have to open your wallet anyway, the price becomes less of an issue, and you may as well get what you really want, provided you think it's worth it. Could this be the crux of the "next" thing? Making buying easy?

Apple, Amazon and others make this somewhat possible with iTunes/AppStore/One-Click-Shopping, or Starbucks charging your credit card with no need to sign - just swipe and done. I think people increasingly expect to get knowledge and insight (news, books, articles, etc.) for free; but outside of that, I'm not sure that free is mandatory. Take music or movies, while some people will download for free via a Torrent or something else, most do pay. In fact, artists that offer "pay what you want" downloads of music on their sites, often make more than the 99cents that iTunes charges.

Will it be this simple? Frictionless transactions or a new, more effective advertising medium? Or is there something else out there that is fundamentally shape-changing? I suspect the latter...

the target audience

Most rapid successes in the commercial world come from people who built something that they themselves would use, knowing (or hoping) that there were many others out there like them who would be similarly compelled. Their second advantage came from knowing themselves, and knowing where they'd go to shop for something like this, and how much they'd be willing to spend on it - thus was formed their marketing strategy.

But then the plague of success hits - they get bigger, hire more people, get an MBA intern. and fall into the trap of PowerPoint, market evaluation, quantitative and qualitative analyses, projections, focus groups, etc., and all of a sudden ideation and marketing become a process-laden mechanism that has its own definition of success and failure, which may or may not correlate to actual business success.

At this point, it's hard to identify that original company, its original passion and commitment to the audience, etc. At this point, things like Seth Godin's sugar-coated corporate speak emerge. Why? Because MBAs and lawyers and HR people get involved, and marketing becomes data-driven, lawsuit-proof, politically-correct "customer engagement tool" vs. the process of authentically and creatively driving demand to capacity.

This organization must get out of its strategic entrenchment and sense, respond and adapt. It must focus on what matters most, their knowledge and intimate understanding of their audience, its needs, its passions, and what the customer will pay for. They can do this by recapturing that which started them off on a path to success in the first place.

What if you didn't have that first-hand knowledge? Pete Reilly spoke of the need for new paradigms this week, specifically about why "shared pencil" and "many watching one" models for learning are not very effective, and proposes a new paradigm of "ubiquitous access" based on cloud computing and virtualization. Just two days before this, Scott McLeod wrote about the efficacy of netbooks in schools.

I admire both these gentlemen immensely - they are passionate, proven and respected educators (I am not); and while I wholeheartedly agree with their premise (that a paradigm shift is needed, as is better technology for learning), I worry that they might be missing a critical element.

The target audience.

Students are not adults. They have (as both Pete and Scott have spoken about many times) an absolute affinity with technology. The adult frame of reference is different, and the adult's filter is different, adults are not children.

The customer of a school system is the student. Like Google's advertising model, the students don't pay for the service, but if they aren't achieving the right outcomes, the funding/ads will dry up. Proof that the education system hasn't internalized this - "no child left behind," "education reform," abysmal graduation rates, etc.

What do students want? A friend was telling me recently that he bought his 14-year-old son an iPod Touch and an Acer Ferrari 1100 laptop. The former costs roughly a tenth of the latter. One day he walked in on his son doing homework with his Touch while the Ferrari sat, closed and untouched. Dad asked Son why he wasn't using the laptop (bigger screen, keyboard, faster, etc.), and Son said he was fine as-is. Dad then asked Son if he'd be good without the laptop altogether, and after a pause to think about it, Son said "yes." Dad took the laptop away Son hasn't yet asked for it.

I think Pete and Scott ought to reflect on the real needs of the customer. "Ubiquitous access" today is about mobile devices that the students already have or can get easily and cheaply. It's about schools and educators opening their minds to the idea that the customer and hence the target audience is not people like them. Students' use of technology is dramatically different from adults. Tomorrow it will change again.

The paradigm of teaching will need to adapt to the requirements and expectations of its customers, and engage them in their context. Most project-based learning schools already do this. What's more, in this new world, schools may have to re-think certain concepts - preventing text messaging (and the use of mobile phones) because it looks like "cheating" might be replaced with encouraging the use of text/mobile because it is teamwork. But as an adult, I'm sure this is already so last year...

$18.69

Some of you noticed that I tried Google's AdSense service about three weeks ago, I'm now happily back to being ad-free. It was an interesting experiment, I tried to keep them unobtrusive, despite using three distribution mechanisms - the site, search and the feed.

As you've no-doubt guessed, I "earned" $18.69 over this time. I had intended to contribute another $18.69, and take the total $37.38 and donate it to a local charity which my employer would match, to get to $74.76. 

But even now I am unable to get to the money I earned - Google won't allow me to provide payment information - it says I must reach the $10 earning threshold first. I'm pretty sure that $18.69 is greater than $10, but I defer to the very bright minds at Google - they must know of a newer math.

Speaking of which, I read today that Google now owns 3% of the global ad market, which gives them something akin to Wal-Mart's (who has 4% of the worldwide retail market) economic stature. The author (Christa Quarles) went on to suggest that Google should next move into the more lucrative corporate IT provisioning business, where they can provide cloud-based services to companies (they currently have 0.1% share in this market).

I don't agree. For Google to branch out into this space, they would need a level of sales and marketing and support that IMO is inconsistent with their business model. Unless of course they have innovated a whole new business model. And even then, I think they should stay true to their core business.

It's telling that we are comparing the market might of Google to that of Wal-Mart. Think about Wal-Mart's market dictatorial capability. They tell their suppliers what they want and at what price, and the suppliers acquiesce. Google seemingly has the might to tell people (it's channel partners like me) that math as they understood it doesn't apply anymore, and I suppose I have to acquiesce too.

Have both organizations gotten too big? Here's an interesting thought - some of the more diversified companies have suffered the most unhappy fates in this current economic situation - from GE to Citi to GM to AIG. Isn't this a bizarre reversal? We're taught to diversify our portfolios to protect from specific reversals, but looking at this market situation, it looks like a bad strategy.

Or was it? One common denominator with these poor performers is that they all own a finance company (GE Capital, GMAC, etc.). I believe even Wal-Mart had explored the idea of creating a bank. If they'd all only been banks (no trading, insurance, etc.), they would have been subject to more stringent regulatory oversight, and perhaps never been able to get into this situation. But with their diversification, and current rules, at the highest level, they were able to choose which regulator applied to them, and of course they chose the most lenient, which gave them the most latitude.

I hope Google doesn't go into finance - it could be their kiss of death, especially if their new math is anything like the math that our friends at AIG, Citi, GMAC, etc. use. And it'd be a certainty that I'll never see my $18.69.

the new green

Following on inspired minds that want to grow, and some feedback I received, here's a corporate viewpoint.

Maybe it's the optimist in me, but especially now when trust in corporations is so low, companies must not only assert a vision that is inspiring, but also make it a public mission to live up to, and be held to a standard of performance.

The green movement started this way. A few saw the light and began to behave in a new way. Green funds were created, VCs for green start-ups were formed, etc. When it began, most were skeptical. Cynics said that green was more expensive - organizations that were green would be less profitable; they/it would never succeed, it was just a fad.

Despite this and no major legislation (outside of emission controls), green continues to be a strong and powerful force. Our government is now investing in green; new companies are touting their commitment to green every day, hiring green "czars," moving into green(er) buildings; green-specific industries have sprung up; even students now more than ever use green and social responsibility as criteria by which to judge potential employers.

Green is a largely self-policed or socially-policed phenomenon based on the idea of good and environmentally-sensitive behavior. Can it be repeated?

Companies that step forward and demonstrate their integrity, transparency and accountability could be the ones where customers choose to shop, whose shares investors choose to buy, in whom people choose to believe.

Integrity, transparency and accountability (ITA) are not where a company will out-innovate or out-perform their competitors, but rather where a company out-behaves. This could also be where a company creates market advantage, where they can capitalize on the perception of mistrust and outshine the rest to be recognized as having a management ethos and discipline that can be trusted, that won't be rapacious, that will be open and honest and accountable. This could also be a really effective marketing strategy, one that results in (like Whole Foods) market and price advantage.

There will need to be a way to judge performance, and ensure actively good behavior. Could it, like green, be a more socially-driven vs. regulation-driven mechanism? I hope so.

My gut says companies that out-behave are more sustainable than those that don't. They are potentially better long-term investments because they are less likely to get caught out, but will be able to capitalize on the those that do, capturing market share, talent, etc. when the ill-behaved are outed (AIG, GM, Madoff, etc.). Imagine if there was an ITA-compliant directory of companies from which you could choose your insurance, banking, investment provider, or where you could buy your car, etc. Would you go there if you just found out that you'd been "Madoff'ed"?

They, like the tortoise, will get there in the end, perhaps with less flash than the hare, but with a stronger and more sustainable business.

It's different spin on inspiration and vision, one that could be table stakes for tomorrow's companies because society (and not necessarily regulation or law) wants and expects good behavior.

inspired minds want to grow

Inspiration is a wonderful word. Someone recently reminded me that it is a word that provokes beginnings. I suppose that's true, but I say it has more juice than that. It's a word that helps you through the middle, it is what nudges you forward when things are particularly difficult, and it helps you cross the finish line with strength. 

It is powerful, and has powerful implications. Statements that have inspired me include:

• We will put a man on the moon and return him safely home before the end of this decade. John F. Kennedy, 1961
• I have a dream. Martin Luther King, Jr., 1963

They share this amazing sense of movement, and progress, and impact. They cause you to act.

What is the "corporate" equivalent? I like GE's old one: "We bring good things to light." It made me want to go work for them and help make good things happen. I also like Microsoft's original "A computer on every desk and in every home." People thought they were crazy - there would never be a day when everyone had a computer! But in just one generation, one billion people across this planet have or have access to a computer; that's just incredible!

Neither JFK nor MLK lived for very long after proclaiming their vision. The moon landing did happen as specified, and equality is closer than before; though I suspect that it would be closer still if King had not been assassinated.

Visions move people. But they do something even more powerful - they shape decisions, especially difficult decisions. Trade offs that might have been difficult are made easier because the outcome, the vision is so disproportionately valued.

When inspired, participants separate themselves from the fray to become a part of something. Inspired minds do want to grow; but more than that, they naturally coalesce, they come together, push each other, and become "us" and not "me." "It" has power.

If I were starting something, I would invest a ton of energy, demand that my best people fight, argue, and yell and scream to develop the most profound expression of our intention possible. I would do this knowing that every ounce of energy invested here would (if done well) pay off a thousand-fold with amazing, brilliant, wonderful results.

There's one that you might remember from just a few months ago... "yes we can."

The audience matters most

A good friend of mine, Jack Timmons, sent me this parable today:

A disappointed Coca Cola salesman returns from his Middle East assignment. A friend asked, "Why weren't you successful with the Arabs?" The salesman explained: "When I got posted to the Middle East, I was very confident that I would make a good sales pitch as Cola is virtually unknown there. But, I had a problem I didn't know to speak Arabic. So, I planned to convey the message through three posters...

• First poster: A man lying in the hot desert sand...totally exhausted and fainting.
• Second poster: The man is drinking our Cola.
• Third poster: Our man is now totally refreshed.

And Then these posters were pasted all over the place. "Then that should have worked!" said the friend. "It should have!?" said the salesman. "But I didn't realize that Arabs read from right to left!!"

A powerful lesson for all of us :-). Marketing is the conduit between the customer and the company. It needs to understand both really well and be able to build a lasting bridge between them.

A public speaking coach once told me that great communication is not about you getting across what you wanted to. It's about understanding your audience, their interests and needs, and giving them what they need. His metaphor for this is single people at a bar or party; the "successful" ones are those that are most compelling to their target audience, not necessarily the best looking, dressed, etc.  

Marketing succeeds when the message resonates with your audience, not your management (who are often far from the target audience). But in most large corporations, we find ourselves in the situation where we are required get buy-in from the execs before going out with a campaign. And all-to-often, the execs feel like they need to add value by providing input on creative, sometimes to the point of totally polluting what was once a great thing.

One way to overcome this is to have already done in-market testing with the target audience, and reviewing that as well as the objectives of the campaign with the executives, and then further explaining their role (not to critique the content, but approve the strategy), and if they persist, use the research to defend your approach based on what resonates with the audience.

Anticipation

UPDATE: Seth Godin just wrote an amazing blog about what marketing should be. Well worth a read.

The role of marketing in business has grown in prominence over time. Within marketing, advertising has had its rise and fall. Today it plays a smaller role than it did a generation ago. I don't watch very much broadcast TV, but one show that's definitely on my DVR is Mad Men. It captures what we all imagine advertising was like in the 1960s perfectly.

In that generation, advertising was the king of marketing. The creativity and ingenuity of being able to shape people's perception, and most critically, desire, in a world with limited access to the audience was huge. Companies paid top dollar to get the best advertisers, and it was worth it. The clip above from the season 1 closer of Mad Men is a great example of this.

Seth Godin, a brilliant marketer, also talked about this in a recent blog entry. But his piece is about more than that, it argues that marketing can and should be the place where innovation happens in a company.  I agree.

I see marketing as the point at which customer insight, market trends, creativity, advocacy and the company's business and product strategy meet. If done well, it is where vision can help craft strategy, and where the product is shaped and messaged to accelerate desire, adoption and advocacy.

But sometimes marketing isn't in at the beginning and is forced to be creative in finding ways to wrest success from the jaws of defeat.

Here's my favorite example of this. Back in the 60s (I think), tomato sauce was called "catsup," and the definition of great catsup was its low viscosity (i.e. it poured really easily, was very thin and watery). Along came Heinz, whose tomato sauce was thick and highly viscous; it took a looong long time to pour (remember they had glass bottles back then - no squeezing). Problem - the scientists and product people had created something that was the opposite of "good" in the market's eyes.

The marketing team came up with a brilliant campaign (I'm sure they'd also read the Art of War, specifically where Sun Tzu says "if your enemy likes to fight in the valley, fight him in the mountains"). They created a campaign that began with the idea that slow was good - it was a shootout where the Heinz bottle outlasted the other, more watery brands. Then, the pièce de résistance - based on Carly Simon's Anticipation, they created a series of brilliant commercials like this one. Their tag line: "it's sloooow good" - brilliant.

The result - Heinz completely redefined the category, and everyone else was left in the dust. Their dominance over this market lasted decades, and continues today.

Now that's marketing...

Winning Elections

Andrew Sullivan wrote a great post today about how gay people in California really feel about Proposition 8. And it got me to thinking - why did it pass? For that matter, why do most "righteous" cause-based efforts not succeed?

Some examples - Kerry/Bush, the environment/global warming, a woman's right to choose, equal pay, etc. Why is it almost inevitable that these causes end up having a steeper hill to climb?

With Kerry for example, he had (as most Democrats do) the vast majority of "cool" people on his side (whether that was Hollywood, music, sports, whatever). And yet he lost. As a marketer, advocacy and creativity are HUGE. He had both of these in spades, and yet...

Take the environment - even if you discount global warming, how is it that when the vernacular is "pollution" a word that has NO positive definitions, which no matter how you slice it is bad, the cause still suffers?

Here's my theory.

They care too much, and then get lost in the issue vs. the winning. When something is so deeply entrenched in your heart and stomach, your head walks away. Think of your beliefs, a brilliant idea you came up with, the "rightness" of it is never open to question. The whole organization is also emotionally wound to the point where they are easily fractured into small pieces vs. always unified.

To get things done, convince others, win big, you've got to get out of your heart and into your head. There is absolutely a place for emotion and passion, but if that's leading the way, you invariably get statements like: "I can't believe you don't understand this!!" or "It's so obvious - don't you see???" In both cases, make sure your face has at least 3 times more blood than normal, your voice is beseechingly loud and your hands are grasping at straws.

Now think about how Kerry was defeated or how the environmentalists are foiled. And look at the modus operandi of those players. Zero heart, zero stomach, zero emotion - just plain, cold, calculating strategy.

Are they better people? No. Are they smarter, clearly yes - they're winning far more frequently. Can you say Swift boat, or death tax? Can you say clean coal? <-- Just what the hell is clean coal anyway? It's absolute fiction! And yet...

...they won.

What do to?

The most brilliant strategist ever (IMO) is Sun Tzu. The Art of War, which was written 2,600+ years ago is an incredible book - if you need to win at anything, this book should be the first thing you read and re-read. Some noteworthy quotes:

Remember this always:

It is only one who is thoroughly acquainted with the evils of war that can thoroughly understand the profitable way of carrying it on.

If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.

Implication - the cause should be separated from the fight (think of Karl Rove?). The general must not look at the cause with bias or subjectivity. Be dispassionate about what you have, what you don't have, what you need and what you must do to win. It's not about the cause anymore. It's about winning.

Now this is how they win: 

If your enemy is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If he is in superior strength, evade him. If your opponent is temperamental, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant. If he is taking his ease, give him no rest. If his forces are united, separate them. If sovereign and subject are in accord, put division between them. Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected.

Surely there are literate people on both sides of these issues? Why isn't everyone reading this book?

It is critical to always know that:

The clever combatant imposes his will on the enemy, but does not allow the enemy's will to be imposed on him.

Just my opinion, but it seems to me that every time a "righteous" cause loses, it's because they were outwitted, and not because they were wrong.

Bottom line - winning is about winning. Once you've won, then go back to the cause. Don't let the people who lead the cause lead the battle. They're obviously not good at it.

Now look at Barak Obama's campaign and how it was run. He's read this book, maybe even twice...

Find the Joy

A good friend of mine used this phrase (find the joy) as his IM tag. He is a brilliant marketer. I think I now understand what he meant, but it took one other person and two other experiences to help me get there.

I recently attended a lecture by Tony Wagner who talked about, among other things, his seven survival skills for teens today (as expressed in his book The Global Achievement Gap). 

1. Critical Thinking and Problem Solving
2. Collaboration across Networks and Leading by Influence
3. Agility and Adaptability
4. Initiative and Entrepreneurialism
   
5. Effective Oral and Written Communication
6. Accessing and Analyzing Information
7. Curiosity and Imagination

During the lecture, he asserted that these are the necessary ingredients to assure the success of a school in the 21st century. I was sitting next to a good friend Marja Brandon, who raised her hand to say that there was a missing ingredient - joy. She is the head of Seattle Girls School, and her school absolutely embraces these seven, but the ingredient that makes her school successful is #8 - Joy. The hallways, classrooms, the very fabric of the school must be steeped in joy, for this must the stuff of any place where our children spend time.

The second experience came today as I read Martin Lindstrom's article in Advertising Age entitled How Apple, Others Have Cultivated Religious Followings. In it, he talks about the nine ingredients required to create brand following: A Clear Vision, A Sense of Belonging, An Enemy, Sensory Appeal, Storytelling, Grandeur, Evangelism, Symbols, and Rituals.

Like Wagner, I think Lindstrom forgets that final ingredient of Joy. I own a lot of Apple gear, and I know that feeling of making my purchase at the Apple Store, or receiving a package at home, and further that feeling you get when you share the newest, coolest app that you just downloaded for your iPhone with a fellow-iPhoner. (It is enhanced when you sense the rest of the group's envy at not having that particular toy!)

Joy makes me return to the store, it is also what makes Marja's students run to school everyday.

My good friend was right with his IM tag - "find the joy" is fundamental, and Marja was right about her school. If you can find, capture, and sustain this feeling, you get to be successful. And what's more, to the outside world, it looks incredibly easy and natural; and your peers/competitors all look with envy because it is that ineffable thing that they simply don't know how to name or capture.

There is no doubt in my mind that finding and holding on to the joy is one of the most difficult things any person or organization will do.

It takes hard, hard work, a truly authentic commitment, and the integrity and savvy to recognize and respect it.