~synthesis~

the NRA is right - it’s not about the guns...

...it’s about the gun owners. According to Wayne LaPierre (head of NRA), “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” It’s hard to argue with that, just as it is hard to implement an “only good guys may have guns” policy.

Proponents of gun control will say that access to certain (or all) weapons + ineffective buyer "qualification" are the issues. This might be true, but so what - it will not prevent gun violence in a country where there are ~9 times more gun dealers than McDonalds restaurants; where there are already ~300 million guns in circulation, and where 5-10 million guns are purchased every year.

The American Bill of Rights protects an individual’s right to bear arms; changing that is nigh impossible, so the real question is not how to prevent gun ownership; it is akin to what LaPierre said, how do we prevent bad guys from wanting to use guns.

I think the anti-gun lobbies/organizations are wasting their time and money. They ironically draw strength and impetus from killing sprees (especially where young people are involved), and sure they create a feverish signing of anti-gun petitions and calls to Congresspeople, but in the end, the outcome is status quo. And then comes another spree, the process begins anew, with the same outcome - status quo.

Back to LaPierre, who are these “bad” guys? The killers are almost always male, they often are killed or kill themselves in the process (society gets no justice), and they are deranged.

So most gun violence is committed by men; these men buy/get guns as an extension of their penis/machismo. They use guns to assert their maleness, and as a conduit for their anger and bravado. Their role models are gun-toting archetypes, like John Wayne/Rambo/etc., revolutionaries, survivalists, gangstas, soldiers, other spree-killers, etc.

They crave the luster of strength, confidence, coolness, assertiveness, heroism, etc. that comes from wielding a gun. Guns are perceived to be a supremely manly accessory.

Rather than relentlessly pursing the pointless cause of legislative relief, let us instead change the perception of guns. Let us reposition gun ownership and gun usage as something other than an expression of machismo.

It would take time; it would take persistence; it would certainly take creativity; but compare that to the multi-decade failure of every anti-gun organization to meet its goal. It is time to try a new approach.

Positioning is a powerful, powerful tool. It allows a thing to be conceptualized or re-conceptualized in a way that will endure. I wrote this a couple of years ago - if you have a moment, read it, and more importantly, watch the two videos. They are outstanding, and they are exactly what is needed to redefine the lure of “bearing arms.”

How would “men” feel if guns were associated with tampons, or as an indicator of erectile dysfunction? Will this happen overnight? No. But look at how we view cigarette smoking today vs. during the era of Mad Men.

If America’s love of guns is to be diminished, it will NOT be with laws; it will be because we redefined the notion of gun ownership to be insipid.

fatal dependencies = political failure

Marketing exists to grease the skids between the product and the buyer. There are many ways to do this, but in the end it boils down to creating actionable preference.

Because marketing is so visible and so expensive, it is easy to assume a good marketing campaign trumps the product, business process, or customer. We often see senior business executives more enamored with marketing at the expense of the other two. This generally leads to bad outcomes - in business or in politics.

Now politics is perception so marketing (and polling) do play a role. But relying on them exclusively can bite you, as Hilary Clinton learned during the 2007 primaries, despite being a pretty good product.

What can also bite you is believing that midterm (local) wins can translate to national elections. In 2010, the Republicans won simply by opposing President Obama. Their message, “We’ll stop ObamaCare, kill terrorists, hate anything a Democrat does, and lower taxes.”

The product/candidate didn’t matter as long as it could parrot the party line. Win first and worry about governing later, if ever.

Just months later, the Republican Primary candidates went back to the well: vilify the incumbent and make impossible, sound-byte promises that resonate with the base. All talk (spin) no substance (product).

It is hardly surprising that the shallowest candidate won.

But the Presidency is a different ballgame. The electoral college and broad-based support matter more than any one Congressional district. The dynamic is more complex, the scrutiny is greater, and your opponent is no longer a less competent and (even) more buffoon-like version of you.

Now the product matters as much if not more than the marketing. It must meet the needs of a much broader set of customers, it must be real, and it must convince skeptics. A shallow (and hollow) message won’t cut it.

Governor Romney lost because he assumed marketing would take him all the way. He let winning the primary go to his head, did not realize how different the new game was, and how much harder it is to convince undecided voters. He also assumed he and his plans were now fully-vetted and approved by all voters - no analysis or clarity required. “I’m bona fide!” And finally, he believed that the people attending his rallies represented all voters, that what swayed them would sway every voter he needed for the win, and that their fervency reflected their intent to turn out and vote.

The reason your base is called your base is because they love you and your platform, and hate your opponent. The relationship is irrational. Independents are less driven by emotion - they’re trying to make a reasoned choice based on factors matter to them.

The Romney camp didn’t grasp this - they reckoned that mere promises were enough to carry the day. They avoided specifics because they didn’t want to open cans of worms. Non-fanatics saw through it; they wanted:

• Specific, independently verified plans showing how 12 million jobs would be created.
• Proof that you can lower taxes, grow defense, not raise more money, lower the deficit, and allow everyone to take home more money.
• To know why he hated Latinos (and women?) so much.
• To learn Romney’s strategy to work with the Tea Party (something the Republican Speaker failed at), and a Democrat Senate.

These questions (and others) required more than vapid sound bytes, more than “trust me because I saved the Olympics.” The marketing wasn’t holding water.

But this wasn’t their only problem - remember the three elements in the equation - product, marketing, customer. They forgot that the only thing that counts in the end is a person showing up and voting (customer). They assumed that their voters would turn out, but did nothing to assure it. This was the straw that broke the camel’s back.

The President, invested early and extensively at the local level. He was able to overcome a number of setbacks (negative ad campaign, poor debate performance, weak economy, etc.) with his “ground game.” He avoided outlandish promises (12 million new jobs, lowering the deficit without raising taxes, etc.), and his local machine created relationships and helped people come out and vote.

In the wake of the election, the "evolved" Republican strategy for 2016 appears to be:

1. Romney was too liberal - the next candidate needs to have unimpeachable conservative credentials (small government, lower taxes, bigger defense, loves God).
2. Win the Latino and female vote - support amnesty and trumpet Marco Rubio and Susana Martinez, to demonstrate Latino/female kinship.
3. Continue to deny inconvenient facts - the 2010 Republican House was the least functional ever; climate change does exist; lower taxes don’t magically create jobs; there is no fraud - voter id laws are designed to prevent Dems from voting; gay people families are just as normal as straight families. “Hey - let’s not change things too much, after all - there’s nothing wrong with the real us, the problem was Romney.”

#1 & #3 make sense. Republicans have a better chance of wining when they stay true to their roots. There is goodness in authenticity, misguided though it may be.

#2 - well... Latinos and women (and any other “target audience”) are not idiots - they can see through the lip service. If the Republicans truly wish to win over these constituencies, they will have to get over the idea that a marketing/spin campaign is all that’s needed.

Exit polls from the election showed that Americans are:

• 25% Liberal ~ 40% Moderate ~ 35% Conservative
• 39% Democrat ~ 33% Republican ~ 28% Independent

Neither party wins without the moderate/independent vote. This vote is by definition not emotionally attached to a party, and thus makes decisions by observing behavior, reviewing facts, and evaluating policies and plans.

Marketing alone can not convince them. The winning candidate will understand that you also have to show the substance of your product, and you have to directly and genuinely engage your customer.

I am a moderate/independent who will never affiliate with a party. I wanted to vote for Romney - on paper, he seemed the better candidate. BUT in reality, he lacked substance, disdained the voters, and exhibited a shocking lack of integrity. I changed my mind because all I saw was an empty suit whose only interest was self-interest.

To win, Republicans have to get past their Eric Cantorness and focus on the electorate - spin won't win.

is foxnews secretly pro-obama?

What if candidate Romney pulls out a miracle and not only wins the Presidency, but also drags a Republican majority into both the Senate and the House?

Whom, in the months to follow is going to be most disappointed and dejected? I say it is FoxNews, and especially Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter (the prince and princess of vitriol).

Why would these two who revel in reviling anything and everything Liberal, who can spin the smallest Democratic act into a demonic plot to strike down all God-fearing Republican Christians be sad?

Because they’d have no-one to hate. The “lame-stream” Liberal media (MSNBC) would own the self-righteous, angst-filled hate advantage, and take over the mantle of official spokesnetwork for the easily-manipulated unwashed masses. Hannity, Coulter, Limbaugh and the rest, all ardent supporters of Mitt, the Tea Party, and all things Sarah Palin would languish on their airwaves with nothing to complain about and no-one to insult.

Imagine that.

My assessment of the coverage mix at Fox/MSNBC:

• 5% our candidate/party looking good.
• 15% their candidate/party looking bad.
• 70% analysis affirming how their bad behavior makes “us” look good.
• 10% update (+ lots of video) of brain dead, ultra-tanned mom arrested for bringing daughter to tanning salon.

To fill the airwaves (and garner watchers and advertising $$) the best possible outcome for Fox/MSNBC is a president of one party, and a split in the House/Senate. This way everyone gets to have someone hate-worthy in power, and of course spend interminable hours with sycophantic "analysts" critiquing minutia in order to perpetuate the hatred.

Many think today’s professional athletes sacrificed the intellectual for the physical; that they are largely one-dimensional beasts whose sole focus is winning at all costs and cashing in on that big paycheck. With American Football, it is this plus the desire to physically dominate and punish your opponent in every way.

I was watching a replay of the Giants-Eagles NFL football game last night; these teams are in the same division, play each other twice a year, and typically for one to succeed, the other must fail. A factor that no-doubt contributes to their intense and long-standing rivalry. Suffice it to say, these players get paid to convincingly decimate each other.

One might even compare them to the Democrats-Republicans in politics, though we’d have to recognize that except for Joe the Plumber (assistant plumber turned actual Republican candidate in the 9th Congressional district of Ohio), most politicians have a meaningful university degree (often post-graduate), earned on the basis of intellectual ability vs. physical prowess.

How interesting then that once the final whistle had blown and the high-stakes, intense game had ended, we saw Jason Pierre-Paul (job: pummel Vick) hug Michael Vick, who hugged him back. This is not unusual - if you watch sports at all, you know this type of inter-team camaraderie is common amongst even long-standing rivals.

What does it say about our politicians when these physically gifted, but purportedly dumb jocks are able to transcend the field of battle and recognize that there is a time and place for everything? They compete with passion during the game, but once it ends, treat each other with care and civility, after all, much more unites than divides.

And yet, our better-educated, more sophisticated, and worldlier politicians are unable to overcome their in-election combativeness to do as the electorate commanded - govern.

We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.

These are the closing words of Abraham Lincoln’s first inaugural address. But he had no experience of Fox/MSNBC - a force united to break our bonds of affection; a force stronger even than the Parties' candidates; and a force whose survival depends on discord.

There is but one way to overcome this force. Hmmm... where is that remote?

social business

Facebook announced its first post-IPO earnings this week, heralding a critical step in the maturity of social networking - is this a new way to make money, or just the same-old?

The "same-old" is Google, whose innovation was to turn what was the customer (we who search) into the product, and selling us to their customer - the advertisers. It was brilliant, and transformed the very nature of internet monetization.

Social is a bit different - most who use it are less susceptible to, and rarely click on ads. After all, the idea is to connect with friends, share - not to click on random ads. With that, this aspect of Facebook's Q2 (second quarter) numbers should give pause:

• Earnings: $1.18 billion
• Earnings from advertising: $992 million (84%)
• Average monthly users: 937 million
• Total quarterly users: 2.865 billion
• Average revenue/user/quarter: $0.41 ($1.23/year)

Piling on, their most ad-lucrative market, and also the most stagnant in terms of user growth is America; the fastest growing is mobile (543 of 937 million users, or 58%), however converting mobile users into big time revenue remains undiscovered country.

At ~1 billion users, Facebook owns ~14% of the planet's population; but even the user base doubles this coming year (nigh impossible), the current revenue/user puts them at just $8.5 billion/year. Hardly "big-time," especially given their initial $100 billion valuation. (For context, Apple expects to earn $13 billion from iTunes alone in 2013.)

Key to social networking is the ability to publish what you're doing or thinking right now. This requires a mobile, connected device. The problem of course is that mobile, connected devices have to be small enough to go anywhere, and if the screen is cluttered with ads, there's no room to express yourself or see what your friends are up to, which defeats the purpose, and turns users off.

While Facebook started out on PCs, it's pretty clear that their future is mobile. But they've also admitted they don't know how to turn those users into $$.

The approach they're most bullish on is Sponsored Stories - where if a company buys the service, their ads show up in the right pane (on a PC), along with names of your friends who Liked it, and with that endorsement, the hope is that you'll Like it too. Facebook said they're now earning $1 million/day from these ads, with about half of that from mobile.

Even if this does create meaningful mobile revenue, it's not how Facebook becomes "big," or how social networking gets through puberty in a compelling way. Ads are just plain intrusive on a small screen; moreover, mobile click throughs need to go to mobile-enabled sites, which are more difficult to turn into actual sales for the advertisers.

Despite Google's brilliance, click through rates have declined from 5% initially to about 0.3% today. Google is still a success, but now with logarithmic (or less) vs. exponential growth.

If social media rely on ads as their primary revenue source, they will only make money by interrupting human interaction, not enabling it or enhancing it. It will however have the advantage of being not at all transformative, but at least it will be irritating.

I hope they are thinking bigger. I hope that Sponsored Stories sparks in the very smart minds at Facebook, Twitter, etc., ambition to innovate yet one more business model; one not based on the user's propensity to click random links, but instead attuned to the interaction between people, aware of what they care about, and savvy about how they will express it. Imagine how effective a company would be when armed with this kind of insight! Let's call this IP - Interaction Perception.

In fact, the smart approach would be to eliminate advertising altogether (reduce distraction and improve satisfaction) and focus instead on collecting data and creating algorithms that can (without infringing on privacy) assess and predict interaction, preference, and passion based on how we Facebook or tweet or tumblr.

Advertising is about creating urgent awareness (you learn something and are then compelled to act). The more savvy or sophisticated the consumer, the less effective ads become. Most ads suck at doing both - they at best accomplish awareness.

The type of contextual engagement that would be possible with interaction perception makes advertising obsolete. With IP, you could pinpoint exactly where your target audience tends to be when they're most likely to want your product, and literally place yourself at that location. You would know the 5 or 10 trend-creators for your product that you need to reach, and through whom you can create immediate and pervasive market penetration without ever "advertising."

foursquare for example creates incentives for people to announce their location, and then works with businesses to create special offers for frequent visitors. They can now identify "magnets" that bring people together, track traffic flow from place to place, determine brand preference, and much more. Today, foursquare is still using their knowledge to help merchants better target advertising/offers on their site, but this is just the beginning. While much of the insight today is location-centered, I'm sure this will not be the case tomorrow; they'll be able to get predictive enough to know when you need your next coffee, and potentially be able to vector a mobile coffee service to where you are. The possibilities are endless.

Unlike search, social networking is implicitly permissive. We never gave Google the right to track our behavior; we became angry when they started doing that and figured out how to disable their oversight. But we choose to publish what we're doing, with whom, and how we feel about it on Facebook/twitter/etc. Sure, some prefer to keep it private, but most don't - they want to share.

Social networking is about the only way to capture interaction perception - the problem is the "innovators" in social networking are too busy trying to sell ads, despite the inherent diminishing returns.

Rather than interrupt our experience with ads, why not infer and fulfill our needs with insight?

spintegrity

As a kid, I routinely proclaimed my innocence when “stuff’ happened . It is possible that sometimes “I didn't do it” wasn’t exactly accurate; it's also possible that had I come clean right away (or even before the “stuff” was discovered), I would have spent much less time being well-grounded...

When I was in that “innocent” moment, I always felt it was possible that the broken fish tank (or whatever) might not actually be discovered, or that I could find a way to not make it my fault.

As in childhood, “stuff” also happens in business; but the consequences are worse than a wet carpet (the fish were saved, though I got zero credit for that). Sadly, the “adult” leaders are often as righteous as I was, and as convinced that they can somehow get away with it.

A teacher I admire recently posted a link on Facebook to a blog by Gary Rubinstein entitled: Why I did TFA, and why you shouldn’t. As a former TFAer, my friend was understandably upset about this. I too am an admirer of TFA (Teach for America), and this article was an eye-opener, it exposed perspectives I hadn’t considered.

Money quote: "Rather than be honest about both their successes and their failures, they deny any failures, and charge forward with an agenda that has not worked and will never work. Their ‘proof’ consists of a few high-performing charters. These charters are unwilling to release the data that proves that they succeed by booting the ‘worst’ kids — the ones that bring down their test scores."

A few months ago, the Susan G. Komen Foundation was accused of politicizing their grant-making (which they denied despite information to the contrary); they were further accused of singling out Planned Parenthood, which the head of Komen, Nancy Brinker also denied. When asked if their reputation was at stake, Brinker responded: “...all I can tell you is that the responses we’re getting are very, very favorable." They reversed their decision 24 hours later, apologized for causing any distress, while reiterating their righteousness.

Like TFA (23 years), Komen has been around a long time (30 years), both are very effective, and widely regarded as resounding successes. They had to overcome huge obstacles; persevere through difficult times; and finally gain traction and slowly win people over. Now, rather than begging to get an invite to the dance, they are the main attraction.

To get to success, it is often necessary to transcend negativity; it is always necessary to believe in yourself, your vision, and your strategy, even (or especially) when everyone else doubts you. This thick skin is critical to progress in the early days, and if you are fortunate enough to "win," it is sadly also very effective at helping you forget who and what you were when you started, and think only of how great you are now.

Humans are designed to forget, minimize, or even romanticize tough times -- I can't imagine a mother wishing to give birth to second child if this weren't true; it is certainly how adults forget the angst and difficulty and complexity of puberty and teenagehood, when they vowed never to be the jerks their parents were.

In life, as we learn and grow, we hopefully never lose sight of the principles and morals that we were taught as children -- these neural pathways were formed when young, and ideally persist and guide us throughout our lives. But in business (and politics), there is no such memory, especially when it comes to leadership. Principles or morals are routinely forsaken in the name of expediency. What's worse, it is the very leaders who were closest to those principles that are most likely to ignore them.

But how is the ideal that caused shivers down your spine, brought a tear to your eye, and drove you to do just one more thing before going to sleep so easily replaced??

I think it happens when you hire two- and three-lettered people - JDs, PRs, MBAs. The "2-3s" are designed to manage situations by respectively telling you scary stories about what will go wrong if you admit things; telling you lies about how great you are, and assuring you about how easy it is to fool the public; and by "helping" you measure success with generally-irrelevant metrics. The 2-3s also help you forget the big picture -- the very reasons your organization exists in the first place.

The result? You've been spun.

Spin is a powerful thing - it is intended to "shape" truth into convenience: "the fish needed a new home anyway, and let's face it the floor also needed a wash." The problem happens when you start believing your own spin. Back to TFA: Education is a difficult, difficult challenge -- we spend $100s of billions on it and are still failing. Rather than admit that some of their efforts have also failed, and help others learn from their mistakes, they're forsaking their original dream -- we can make education better -- for their new mandate -- TFA must succeed at all costs. This is true for Komen, for many large corporations, and certainly in politics.

As Gary put it, “TFA spawned leaders suffer a type of arrogance and overconfidence where they completely ignore any evidence that their beliefs are flawed.  The leaders TFA has spawned are, to say this in the kindest way possible, ‘lacking wisdom.’ ”

When you start believing that your 2-3s can help you hide or spin failures and acts of stupidity, you’re in trouble. When you start believing that these things didn’t really happen, you’re an idiot. And when you start thinking you can now do no wrong, you’re sunk, for you are now without integrity.

The standard to which we hold ourselves is our greatest asset. When we are honest about our successes and failures, we show our humanity. When we are open to external scrutiny, we are worthy of other people’s trust.

remember who you are

Henry Ford once said, “Whether you believe you can do a thing or not, you are right.”

Ford's planned auto-innovations will enable cars to run apps, read your Twitter feed to you, let you update your Facebook status, and surf the web, all while driving! Ford executive Sue Cischke: “Telling younger people not to use a cellphone is almost like saying, ‘Don’t breathe.’”

We know that texting while driving is more dangerous than being drunk or stoned, and yet Ford, in their quest to be "with it" have chosen to pander to kitsch ["Cischke" <--> "kitsch"?] and actually enable distracted driving to win younger buyers - now there's a strategy - let’s proactively help young drivers "stop breathing...” - not sure this is the path to repeat business.

In talking to high-tech C-level executives, I know they are desperate for strategies to help "connect with the consumer." This despite the fact that most of their revenue comes from corporate clients, whose values and priorities are decidedly not-consumer. Corporations (and older people) are interested in function, economic value, predictability and vendor stability; young consumers are interested in form, social value, creativity, and “new.”

So why are large corporations like Ford and others desperate to be hip when their real (paying) customers value the opposite?

In the old days, for costly items like trucks or computers, it was easier to get corporations to buy - they had more money to spend, there were fewer of them (easier to sell/market to a smaller segment), and they could write off the costs of these purchases, making them even cheaper. Whereas the consumer had less money, was much harder to reach, and didn't have the tax advantage. The barriers to entry were lower at the office.

Today corporate customers are extending the lifecycle of hard goods like cars and PCs; they’re reluctant to deplete their cash reserves; and they’re negotiating when they do buy. None of these problems exist in the home, and more specifically, in the minds of new buyers. The barriers to entry are now lower at home and with younger people.

Their example is Apple, who has seen non-corporate, young-consumer sales also drive adult and business purchase behavior. But their “cool” comes from an uncompromising commitment to the product and its design. This priority is why people buy, and why they can command a premium price in tough times. It is also what justifies the "adult" decision.

Executives at Ford (and many high tech companies) are glomming onto social media in the belief that being Twitter/Facebook-enabled associates them with youth and “cool,” and winningyoung and hip customers, leads to “adult” sales as well. This is just badly-executed imitation.

It feels like Ford (and other) executives no longer believe they can “do a thing,” and desperate to remain relevant, are vainly grasping at social networking straws in the hopes that that becomes their new killer feature. 

They should know better. Marketing and random features don't compensate for bad decisions and weak products.

The first step is simple - be clear about your “why” - once you know why you exist - what your fundamental purpose is, then the what and the how become much clearer. There is no doubt about Apple's "why." I fear that companies like Ford have gotten so pendulous that their “why” is lost somewhere in the folds of their quadruple chin.

Instead of enabling distracted driving, get on a treadmill, and work off the fat (high priced consultants, MBAs, etc.) that has caused you to misplace who you really are.

this above all

Seth Godin's post today on tiny media is spot-on. It reminded me of a social media panel I sat on a couple of years ago with the two people who respectively ran John McCain and Hilary Clinton's e-campaigns in the 2007/8 primaries and general election.

Despite having polarized political views, they were totally aligned on web2.0. Paraphrasing: "Everyone needs to jump on social media and web2.0 - if you're not in, you'll be left behind. This is the cheapest and easiest way for you to get the word out - if you post a video on YouTube that doesn't work, it's OK - you didn't lose anything by trying."

My argument: "Marketing is marketing, YouTube, Twitter, newspapers, TV, radio, etc. - are just channels. If your marketing fundamentals aren't strong, you will fail. The advantage of social media is that the channels have fewer gatekeepers. The disadvantage of social media is that the channels have fewer gatekeepers. The impact of social media is that anyone has a voice, and at any point in time, any voice can rise above the fray."

Seth's point - these "tiny media" voices, unlike mainstream press or traditional advertising, are not susceptible to conventional corporate PR machines and can't be bought. While corporations might be used to buying advertising and even editorial, it is impossible to manipulate "any" voice because you have to manipulate every voice. In his words:

If you're hoping that this now important form of media is going to sit there and promote your average stuff for average people made in bulk but pretty cheap product merely because you're used to paying media companies to run ads... I think you're wasting a lot of time and money.

This goes deeper than that. You'll need to take that money and change the product and the service instead.

I agree but I don't think Seth took it far enough. More than product and service, you also have to evaluate your philosophy for the intent to deceive will out. I wrote this last fall in response to a NY Times post about Apple's voice in media:

The reason Apple dominates is that they have no interest in PR per se vs. a fundamental desire to create and achieve incredible and inspiring consumer experiences. Their integrity and authenticity in this is obvious and undisputed. While there are product hiccups (recent iPhone 4 antenna issue), they weather these by staying true to their mission vs. via a well-crafted PR strategy.

Microsoft, Google, etc. on the other hand invest in efforts whose sole or overarching purpose is to drive PR and coverage; ironically making the message the medium. I don’t believe this is authentically who they are, but it is how they act.

Their (MSFT/GOOG, etc.) target audiences and the press can smell this, and obligatorily cover them vs. wanting to be a part of their world because of their products' compelling, profound, and far-reaching implications.

Your organization's purpose is to become a trusted adviser to your customers – a powerful mission to be sure. I wonder sometimes if proactive PR helps or hinders? If your greatest and most visible business successes are measured mostly on PR metrics, you run the risk of pursuing the wrong things, and diminishing your genuine and authentic commitment to the premise that technology can help achieve profound, pervasive, and sustainable improvement.

It’s the difference between doing things that happen to be coverage worthy vs. doing things because they are coverage-worthy…

Tiny media's advantage vs. conventional PR and media: their ONLY currency is integrity and authenticity; the "conventionals" can be bought. Since the former is by definition "any" voice, you can't find it, or buy it, or manipulate it - you don't know which one(s) will surface and be heard. We are increasingly more likely to seek out and believe tiny media because we're tired of the bias and lack of discipline and integrity of conventional media (witness Fox and MSNBC) - this is why I read Yelp reviews.

For "old-school" organizations that count on their secrets remaining intact, and on owning and controlling their image, beware. If your fundamentals aren't sound, and your beliefs and practices can't stand up to external scrutiny, you will be found out. But you won't realize it until it's too late - unbeknownst to you, your own marketing and PR people and agencies are now spending more time spinning you than spinning the market.

deFUDdle

Back when I worked at IBM, if we didn't have the "winning" solution, our strategy was simple - we used FUD. It was brilliant, and worked more often than you might think. FUD = Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. The idea was to push the customer's emotional buttons, poke holes, create scary what-ifs, do whatever it took to force a delay, redefine the problem, or whatever so that we were in a more favorable position.

The Republicans FUD skills are renowned. They are able to create a sense of tension in the electorate in ways that routinely befuddle Democrats. Take health care - they did a brilliant job of associating the reform bill with "bad for the economy" and "a perilous step towards socialism" - fantastic! First, I'm willing to bet that most of us don't even know the definition - according to Webster, socialism is a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property; b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state.

Is there any real risk that America turns into a socialist country through health care reform? Hardly. There is no correlation between the government providing a service and the elimination of all private ownership, but it's a fabulous way to create FUD. The first people to oppose socialism are our much-vaunted Congress, who let's face it, enjoy private ownership of a lot of stuff, some of which was funded by special interests and the tax payers(!); they will do everything in their power to preserve the fruits of their avarice. So - socialism is an absurdity.

What about "bad for the economy"? Again - there are many ways to make numbers mean what you want. You only have to look at this NY Times article about law schools using misleading data to shore up their performance numbers (graduate employment rates, etc.) to help improve their rankings, and you can see how universities ("reputable" universities) will lie.

When it comes to the economy, there are two things that matter most - I want a good job, and I want to take home more money than I am now. But then here's one pretty diabolical piece of FUD: taxes are bad. Well... I don't think it's that simple. How much tax do you want to pay? As little as possible - right? Me too. Thus the resonance with the Republican push on lower taxes. It makes total sense - or does it?

Do my taxes really matter or is there more to this?? Put another way, the real question in my mind is: how do I maximize my net earnings? What I really care about is how much I take home at the end of the day, the nature of the deductions from my earnings are less important than the value I get for those deductions and whether the net amount I'm taking home is going up. <-- Does that make sense?

If it does, then it's not really about taxes is it? Why not make it about personal profitability? Profits being what you get to keep in your wallet after all your expenses are paid. So if there is a change to our economic system that costs me more in tax but lowers or eliminates another (bigger) salary deduction, and after all that I end up ahead, why should I care?

According to this (well worth a read), the American health care system is the most expensive in the world; in 2006, we spent more than $6,700 per person on health care, compared ~$3,500 for most Western nations. The cost is actually higher since every other Western country has universal health care, and about 10% of Americans don't have any coverage at all, so the $6,700 is actually closer to $7,500 per person.

Digging a bit deeper, 70% of Canadian health care costs are borne by the government vs. 46% in the US; the Canadian system costs about $3,700 per person (just about half of the US cost), and yet Canadians live longer and have a lower infant mortality rate - these are the two primary measures of national health care effectiveness.

Bottom line: Canadians spend $3,800 less per person for better health care. If you're American, you might think - yeah but my employer pays my share - what do I care? Well - if personal profitability is your goal, then you will know that you are paying EVERY penny of your medical insurance costs, whether it is in taxes, payroll deductions, a lower salary, or lower prices at the store. No matter how you cut it, the $3,800 difference DOES come from your wallet, and means those of us who live in the USA earn that much less every year, and die earlier to boot.

Even if the US decided to spend $4,500 per person (for every person), that's still a savings of $2,200 for each of us plus the knowledge that no-one gets left behind. Every person in this country gets access. Every person also gets to pad their wallets a bit, and rarely is that a bad thing!

But how to communicate this? It's a pretty complex analysis, and given the state of education in America, I'm not convinced that every voter is going to understand it. Think back to the last person that had a tough economic message to share with the populace - President Ronald Reagan in is first address to the nation from the Oval Office in 1981 - a brilliant speech.

If President Obama had addressed the nation in just this way - not talking to politicians and special interests as he did in his attempts, but talking to the American people, sitting in his office, and not standing in the House; if he had applied simple metaphors as Reagan did, perhaps each of us might have been able to look forward to an extra $2-3,000 in our wallets in 2011.

grow some

There are three reasons to have a meeting - to share information, create insight, or gain agreement.

How many meetings do you attend where there are too many people in the room, and the agenda's so crammed that you are certain never to get through it, plus you're immediately irked because the topic you're there for is last on the agenda and is sure to get postponed? Why do people create meetings like this? I suppose for the same reason that a dinner party host fears that the food will run out, or not enough people will show up.

I can understand that about the eating, but not the meeting. If the point is to share, create, or gain agreement, don't all of those things come before time-keeping? Saying "sorry, as interesting as this is, we have to cut it off so that we can get through the agenda and be finished on time" is an indication of failure.

We all know that when they buzz through the last few slides or points, what gets cut off or rushed is either the payoff of the presentation or the vital discussion afterward. We also know that by rushing or cutting things off, the real goal is rarely accomplished.

This last part is also when the nay-sayers get to debate the issue, resolve concerns, and become supporters; where those that didn't fully understand can see the whole picture; or where the presenter can really land their critical message; etc. Cutting that off is like missing the last 10 minutes of your favorite sporting event ('cause the TV station had to cut over to a soap opera), or if your Rear Window DVD breaks right when Grace Kelly is inside the bad guy's apartment, and he's about to walk in.

If I want to achieve "share," "create," or "gain agreement" - doesn't that matter? Doesn't that matter most? Forsaking actually effective meetings in favor of on-time, well-attended meetings is, well ...pointless.

What's wrong with having one objective, accomplishing it, and getting done early?

Large organizations send employees to trainings on running effective meetings/events. The classes teach you to plan the meeting/event, impose structure, send everyone a pre-read and the agenda, and account for every minute of the meeting.

So you embark on your meeting just as the course prescribes, with high hopes of a good outcome. Then someone questions a critical premise, key people don't show up, and yet a third (more senior than you) person wishes to discuss and debate an issue beyond the allotted time, and you kiss your happy ending goodbye.

I've met "executives" (especially in large, MBA-ridden corporations) who actually "evaluate" meetings! They will judge a meeting to be a poor execution that just happened to go well (got lucky) because there wasn't a crisp, clear agenda, with well-defined outcomes; the meeting was too open-ended; progress didn't occur in the "proper" way; and the organizer appeared inadequately "driven."

The ensuing email: "That a good outcome occurred is unfortunate given the failed execution of process. XXX's inability to orchestrate an effective meeting raises concerns about their competence as a manager, and their eligibility for our leadership program."

The failure is that the meeting has become an outcome unto itself; this is especially true in highly matrixed organizations, and is a classic example of micro-thinking. It contributes to a lack of agility, arrested decision-making, and profound inefficiency because so many meetings are required to actually get something done.

To be a great meeting convener, you need the maturity (understanding of human nature, patience, wisdom, confidence), combined with the cojones (confidence, wisdom, patience, understanding of human nature) to overcome the corporate training and overzealous MBA-types, and stand firm in the conviction that less is so much more than more.

Sadly, people who have developed this level of sensei-ness tend to avoid meetings altogether.

head games

Are you open to trying something new? Are you open to learning something new? Are you open to a new idea, or to overturning a closely-held belief? Before change is possible, a society must be able to say "yes" to these questions, otherwise enacting change is like pushing a rope uphill.

I attended the Games for Learning day of the Games for Change Festival at NYU last week. Brilliant people spoke on the role of games in learning, approaches to assessing efficacy, and how to build great learning games. It was hosted by Ken Perlin and Jan Plass, who are the co-directors of the Games for Learning Institute. There is a lot happening, I learned a ton, and was privileged to meet and hang out with some very cool people.

One facet that wasn't a focus at the Festival is how to ingrain games more deeply within mainstream education. This is a tough, tough challenge, one that will take some careful thought, mostly because the deck is so stacked against change in education.

I recently had lunch with a ~29 year old mother of a 5-year old boy (both were born and raised in the Seattle area). She believes strongly in the authoritarian approach to education, where the teacher is in front, the students listen quietly, write down what the teacher says, do their homework and pass their tests. This is what she wants for her son. I wonder how much of the population she represents?

I've also been talking to a friend about intellectual divides; she sent me two links that shouldn't have surprised me, but did. First, Charles Pearce's treatise on the a segment of America that disdains "smart" - one payoff quote comes from Pastor Ray Mummert of Dover, Pennsylvania, a leader in Intelligent Design community: "We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture." That says it all, doesn't it?

But there's more! The second link is to a survey in National Geographic measuring the relative belief in evolution in Western Countries. Just 14% of Americans believe that evolution is "definitely true"; over the last 20 years, uncertainty about evolution has grown from 7% to 20%; and now fully 1/3 of Americans (more than 110 million people) outright reject evolution. Less than 50% of Americans can provide even a basic explanation of DNA. This ranks America #31 out of 32.

These stories illustrate something of the current state of education in America, how science is regarded, and how deeply-held the idea of "old school" and "traditional" education might be in this country.

I have no data to back this up, but my guess is that the people more likely to believe in creationism are also likely to support "traditional" education approaches. I'm also guessing that a direct "innovation" message will NOT resonate with this audience or help affect change.

How then is something as "radical" as the use of games in learning going to achieve broad use across the American public school system?

Socio-politically, there are two ways to achieve (relatively) rapid, widespread change - brute force (e.g. 9-11/terrorism and security; or H1N1 and the obsession with hand-sanitizer), and guile (e.g. the $billions America spends fruitlessly on dieting).

How is this guile? Most diet-related advertising says something like: "try our new quick, easy and safe approach to losing tonnage without sacrificing the foods you love." The people who buy the product or service keep buying and buying and buying, always seeking that quick, easy fix. The $$ spent on trying to get thin keep increasing despite the fact that the number of obese people in the country is also increasing. People are relentlessly gullible.

Call it guile or preying on stupidity - either way, the lose-weight industry is literally and figuratively making a killing.

I believe that transforming education will require the same mercenary, exploitative approach that the weight-reduction industry has perfected. If we want to see pervasive change, we have to create a marketing groundswell that preys on the gullibility and quick, easy fix-obsessed nature of Americans. The message has to come from a united front - the Department of Education, (some) universities, and foundations, all of whom must be willing to put their money where their mouth is.

I would also focus my "magic pill" on lower grades - say Kindergarten through Grade 3, prioritizing core skills like literacy, numeracy and the sciences. Parents tend to get less involved in school as their kids get older; to make them an effective change agent, they must be at their most passionate, most susceptible to external influence, and most able to influence their school board/district.

Once you have achieved success in the lower grades, you train these same parents to expect and demand innovation as their children grow. If all goes well, you do the same thing with the next generation of K-3 parents, because by then, whatever we're changed will now be the new "old school."

To teach in a changing world, we must ourselves be ever-open to change; today it's games, tomorrow - who knows.

madiba

I saw Invictus again on my flight home yesterday. In the film, President Mandela is called "Madiba" by the people of his tribe; I equate its meaning to something like sensei + wise man + father, or sensei:). "Invictus" (below) was a companion to Mandela during his 27 years in jail. The spirit of this poem (Latin for "unconquered"), combined with his belief in all the people of South Africa, helped make Madiba Madiba.

Most boards and recruiters don't seem to believe a Madiba is needed for success; in most organizations - public, private, or government, the leaders I've observed are much more pragmatic. Their focus is on specific, measurable, and externally-acknowledged outcomes. These are important, and certainly one outward measure of an organization's performance, but if you think this is the only thing, then your true and long-term success is at risk.

Mandela inherited an incredibly complex country - one with angry (but victorious) black people and nervous white people; one where the economy was in the tank; and one where crime and violence were rampant. In the commercial world, this might be akin to management/union acrimony + a recently-merged company (perhaps former competitors) + impending lay-offs + a very competitive marketplace with shrinking margins. Of course Madiba needed to focus on the economy, on crime, and on justice, just as the companies need to focus on their metrics - you have to keep the boat afloat.

But Mandela approached his presidency in a particular way - symbols meant something, honor meant something, and the people (all the people) meant something. Sure there were measurable outcomes, but they weren't meaningful if they weren't underlied by the symbols.

This reminds me of a recent experience: someone I know is in the job market; in the opening section of her resume, she introduced herself beginning with the word "passionate." Her mentor urged her to remove it, saying - "'Passion'? Really? Is that what you want to lead with? Employers will dismiss you outright. Instead write about the quantified and documented things you have done, and the skills you bring to the table. That's what matters."

Sigh...

Of course skills and experience are important, but they're just table stakes. They might allow you to play the game, and perhaps even win on occasion, but to achieve real, sustained, and enduring success, you need heart; you must feel it in your stomach, you must care, and you must have profound passion for your "cause." I would hire one person with genuine passion vs. ten with skills - ask any true leader (government, commercial, or sport) and see what they say.

Just as a great corporation is first the people and then the product, Mandela needed to do more - he needed to galvanize a country - bring together violently opposed people to form one country, one people. He needed to instill the shared spirit, intent, and integrity that is South Africa in every South African.

Mandela knew that metrics alone weren't going to renew South Africa; he knew that speeches alone would not unite the country; he knew that foreign investment alone wasn't going to stop violence. He needed his people (all his people) to be ONE in the cause of their country, and he needed a symbol through which to do this - in his case it was the 1995 Rugby World Cup. He needed to create, as Seth put it, True Fans of South Africa among her citizens.

If there is no "WHY" in your organization or community, you are at risk; the "what" or the "how" will only take you so far. He understood this instinctively, and he also understood that the worst thing in the world was for him to use his electoral victory as a black man to create a new separateness with a reverse apartheid. That's why he honored the Springboks and their colors (something deeply tied to the whites) vs. getting a new name with new colors. And that's why he needed to turn the blacks around, and have them, along with the whites, all become true Springbok fans.

Madiba's stubbornness in fighting his fellow blacks on this was critical. For organizations (political or otherwise), their leaders MUST have this kind of wisdom, this kind of strength, and this kind of resolve. As he said in the film, whilst arguing with his advisers, "This country is hungry for greatness [and this is how I will help them achieve it]."

Shosholoza

sex and selling

Among other things, The Art of War teaches us that we must understand our opponent - know their situation, their motivations, and their strengths and weaknesses. Aikido teaches us to then transform that energy into mutually-positive outcomes.

Recent conversations with parents tell me they're still at a loss about broaching sex with their kids.

Most children have sex way before adults believe they do; they like it as they like other things they're told they shouldn't (alcohol, downloading unlicensed content, staying out late, etc.). It got me to thinking - rather than take the fear and forbidden fruit approach to sex, why not take advantage of what's already there?

Here's my sex speech:

I know sex is something you're going to want to try, and if you're anything like I was, once you start, you'll want to get it as often as you can. There are three things you need to know that'll help you get as much as you possibly can:

1. You can't have body parts falling off - there are a ton of sexually-transmitted diseases, and if you catch one, not only will it hurt, but you might never get laid again.
2. Pregnancy is a sex-stopper. Once you are or get someone pregnant, sex stops - period. You don't want any part of this.
3. The best sex is with someone who wants it just as much as you do. If your partner says 'No' - that's it - stop; and you have to make sure your partner will stop if you say 'No.' If you ignore this, you might go to jail where you'll get way the wrong kind of sex.

What do you do? Always, always talk about sexual history and diseases - you gotta know you're both free of disease; condoms do help, but the conversation is just as important, and your partner will like you more for it [If it's a boy, say: girls will really respect and like you for bringing this up, and it will help you get more sex]. Condoms will also help pregnancy, so it's a two-fer.

Let's review - first - you've gotta talk history; second - condoms; third - 'no' means stop.

You know they're going to do it anyway, I'd rather it be safe, protected, consensual sex than the alternative.

This is a bit of a departure for this blog, or is it? While more personal, this is basic marketing. A old friend Nick Stodin once said the key to successful selling is the organizing principle - if you package something correctly, people will buy it - no selling required. His example:

• Take a bunch of vegetables, chop them up and throw them in a pile in the back yard. What do you have? Compost. What do you do with it? Turn it over, wait for it to rot.
• Take a bunch of vegetables, chop them up and drop them on your kitchen floor. What do you have? A mess. What do you do with it? Clean it up.
• Take a bunch of vegetables, chop them up and put them into a wooden bowl. What do you have? A salad. What do you do with it? Eat it.

The organizing principle is the bowl, or in the previous case, the path to prolific sex; the desired behavior is assured, no selling required.

merits of merit

I work for a large corporation where compensation is based on merit. This theoretically ensures that everyone aspires and those who achieve are rewarded. In practice you need a way to normalize performance so that you can judge relative achievement, to pay the best performers appropriately.

In the hands of some managers, normalization (aka standardization) can be effective because they assess and value the tangible, intangible, and extraordinary; they override "the model" because certain people contribute the magic ingredient that creates greatness or inspires team performance but isn't easily documented. They also recognize that a team requires different types of contributors to achieve consistent success over time, some are visible, many are not; but without these "invisible" contributors, success doesn't happen. In the end, effective teams don't really have a normalized model.

The bigger the organization, the less latitude and appreciation there is for "abnormalized" performance. The natural result is competition between team members to the detriment of their customers, and tension between the team and its management, to the detriment of their mission.

David Warlick used this fabulous quote in a recent post: "We don’t stop playing games because we’re getting older – We get old because we stop playing games" (anon). Seth Godin wrote a brilliantly-titled post called the false solace of vilification, where he suggests that when stuff happens, we tend to lash out, often at the person in the best position to help us. Then there's Amanda Ripley's piece in The Atlantic which attempts to dissect the anatomy of a great teacher. The premise being that there are great teachers who can accomplish amazing things - so how do we make all teachers individually accountable for creating great students?

President Obama, Secretary Duncan, Chancellor Rhee, Amanda Ripley and a gazillion others are putting all their money on merit-based pay for teachers as the next panacea. They are doing what Seth cautioned us not to - vilifying the people that can help us.

Merit pay ONLY succeeds in individual, competitive games; i.e. when you have to beat someone else to win. It's really easy to motivate salespeople based on merit 'cause they control their destiny; they can only win when their employer wins; and when they win, their competition loses.

Unless you're the only educator in the school, merit pay will fail. The community must work together to help every child achieve their true potential. If the community members are competing against each other, the one person that matters most is ignored or abused. I have written about this here and here. But don't take my word for it - check out this fabulous article thanks to Larry.

Obama et al are grasping at the teacher merit pay straw because they're not teachers, they need to do something, and No Child Left Behind tried and failed to improve things by making schools accountable. So let's make teachers accountable. This will result in David's quote becoming more true - teachers will lose any desire to play, and their classes will grow old and decrepit before our eyes.

When teacher merit fails, should we then legislate that American students must be smart or we "fire" them? When that fails, maybe we'll legislate parenting - hmmm... that could be a good thing - let's let the US Government decide who should be a parent! The one "interesting" outcome with this is when it fails, there won't be a need for an education system at all!

I think NCLB was mostly right - we have to make schools accountable for student achievement. Everyone within the school should act as one team; all benefited equally when their graduates leave with the best preparation possible for the next step in their journey. NCLB's failure is in how they chose to manage and measure performance.

It gave schools and districts control over the definition of success - this is just plain dumb. I'll take your money every time if I get to decide whether or not I did a good job. The proof of this is profound increases in American per-student spending with no improvement (often a decline) in student achievement.

What would I do? Well, I wrote insanity defined over a year ago, when I was just learning about education, and my perspective hasn't changed. Since then I have visited many successful schools, and all employ something of the approach I advocated; all teach as a team and not as individuals; and all have leaders whose very essence is committed to student greatness first, and all measure their achievement based on their students' success after graduation.

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.