The Boss

An interview with AG on the Innovation Process at P&G and described in detail in his recent book The Game-Changer.

Another viral campaign

Up Close And Personal With The World

I have been a long time fan of Iconoculture...

Fascinating article for a marketer and a philosophical point of view from an organization focused on researching cultural trends.

Here are some of the top lines from the article:

• Technology is rapidly helping to level the worldwide commercial playing field
• Consumers make new connections everyday socially and professionally that redefine relationships
• A whole new relationship has been established between the consumer and the marketer
• There are 6 trends at play -

• The centerless world - Technology enabled global competition, Cultural migration.


• Greater expectations - Almost no barrier for new entrants, Consumer demand Trust!
  The fear economy - Brands are hope, brands are trust in an otherwise crazy world.
  Finite future - Sharper focus on sustainability.


• The Age upon us - Age'ing consumer has different needs that need to be addressed


• Belief and the globalized consumer - 3 types that are passionate about their views on ethics, morality and religion.

• Belief-motivated consumers: Cause Consumers driven by ethical (including environmental) convictions


• Confession Consumers: Live by a set of strict religious doctrines


• Conversion Consumers: Represent the shifting allegiances of religions and cultures as they mix

One thing to remember with research and consumer research is just as guilty of prejudices...

We don’t see things the way they are, we see them the way we are – Anais Nin It is never too late to give up your prejudices - Henry David Thoreau

Geometry INfinitly Adaptable

I just completed some market research and brand strategy for a food brand that allows consumers to PERSONALIZE the new buzz... 'Make it your own'.

But this may be a whole new revolution in Automotive technology - GINA from BMW.

Do brands need sidekicks?

We have all solved riddles at one time or another for pleasure or as a test of our intelligence. I remembered one while watching a movie, “Make this line shorter without erasing it.”. The simple solution is to simply draw a line longer than the one that exists. It is all relative, long, short, big and small, all adjectives are a relative assessment of one thing over the other.

Products often share several similar traits it is the relative assessment across attributes that results in a hierarchy of the good, better, best. The choices also create a clutter across consumer offerings, but it is only relative to the next product that makes a product better than the next. Every product is great by itself, it is only with reference to the next product that it is gets better or worse. Products need companions and competition to fade or shine, without a ‘sidekick’ products can’t hit its full potential.

Products need liberation! The liberation from the proverbial ‘sidekick’, the kind of liberation where one does not depend on another product to achieve its full potential. It is not to say that emotions are not relative, they surely rank order based on people, their psychology, behavior and attitudes but now the basis for measure of relative value is not another product or attribute but this one is in a new domain and a whole new dimension. One that is out of the labs where products are created and in a world of emotions and values. From the tangible to the intangible.

There is no doubt, Liberation is a great feeling!

Brand communication and the primal human instincts

As a marketer I have always believed the best chance of success starts by knowing the consumer, her desires, her needs and her wants. We sometimes forget some of the deepest motivations that drive our choices and our behavior. Perhaps it is the chaos of the day to day that masks these potent drivers of survival and the deep seated motivators of behavior.

Survival is our most basic human instinct. Our sole purpose in life begins with extension of life itself, procreating and protecting our existence. Modern survival manifests itself in other forms, our philosophies, our principles, our values and beliefs. We see our survival through proliferation and propagation in people we make friends with, the things we choose to do and the material items we decide to own. To the consumer the brands they own are an extension of themselves, we associates with friends who share a common taste and a similar preference for brands and products.

It is a shame we depend on sexuality in sensationalizing our brand communication to make this point of survival. As humans we are genetically coded to synthesize and decipher the right signals that enable survival and drive forth our genes and our ideals. Brands that leverage these signals in communication have a stronger chance of success. The works of Ernest Dichter during the later half of the 20^th century and more recently Clotaire Rapaille have gives us the hope to better leverage these deep seated drivers to be built into our brand communication.

Can dimensions be branded?

These days what gets branded is only limited by the marketers imagination and the need to differentiate. The other day I had was wondering if time, space and frequency can be branded? Hang on… I am not crazy, and no this is not an advanced physics essay either! I am still talking branding, all I am trying is to present a new perspective on branding a dimension. The service industry has used dimensions as a competitive edge for years, especially when they say ‘we have the expertise to do this job faster than our competitors’ – Time dimension, ‘We know the local market better than the rest’ – Space dimension, ‘Our scale and size enables us to support your needs, when needed’ – Frequency & Time.

IT services companies (IBM, HP, Infosys, Wipro, Accenture, etc.) initiated it with computing software, products, service and staffing; Cable channels do it with video; FedEx Kinko’s does this with printing; Merry Maids does it with household help; I could go on and on. Yet it is strange to think about the basic dimension that they leverage.

They are all in the business of being there when you need them!

So are basic dimensions differentiable? Time is time is time is time whether is mine, yours or anyone else’s, so also time in the US is the same as that in Asia, Europe or Latin America so clearly space and frequency are as much a commodity as grains and oil. Perhaps the differentiability is a function of ownership. My time may be more valuable today than it was yesterday and similarly when I am working on a job I am on a delivery schedule making the space-time combination valuable and hence differentiable. That is classic branding that needs segmentation, targeting & positioning for its success, may I just say dimensions can certainly be branded!!!

Brand manager is the brands backseat driver

In today’s world of User Generated Content, super segmented mediums of communication (Blogs, Podcasts, Videocasts, etc.) the brand manager has little executional control over the brand itself. What he or she drives is the strategy the road map to steer the brand towards the direction where we want the brand should go.

The consumer may hear about it from a friend, advisor, expert or may be she receives a sample from one of the same touch points or just watch hear an advertisement, print ad in a magazine or simply a flyer at the store; Mom is now curious about the product prompting her decision to try the product. She makes the trip to a store or a website to browse and make the purchase. Her purchase may involve interaction with fellow buyer (who knows may be someone who liked the product and praises the brand or someone who hated the brand/company dissuading her from buying the brand/company products) who provides her an opinion or an expert who influences her choice.

Once home she tries the product experiencing it holistically from opening the package, to reading dispensing, using, and repetition until the product/brand is ready for replenishment. If we convinced her about the efficacy of the brand and the benefits exceeded her price creating a value, we may even have an ambassador or even a zealot depending on how exciting the results turned out. On the other end if we failed her she is going to do everything within her capacity to talk about her failure. All this while the brand manager is tracking only aggregated data on market trends at a much higher level with the individual consumer in his or her blind spot.

The circle of the brand experience starts with awareness, research, browsing, purchase, usage, advocacy and repurchase. The brand manager is working out the grand plan for the brand, the message, the pricing, the placement, the promotions, the affiliations, the alliances, the endorsements and even the packaging with the intent to get to his or her prospect a fulfilling experience anytime and every time she interacts with the brand. As aggregate market data trickles in to the Brand manager any obvious deviations from expected outcome require retooling, taking aim and firing all over again, all this while Mom may be cooking up a whole new surprise.

Not too different from passenger who is reading the map and instructing the driver who may chose to follow the directions or simply ignore and do what they want.

Brands and rituals

It was talking my cousin sometime ago and I was fascinated to hear about his mornings, from the time he wakes up to the time he leaves for work. His narration got me thinking of my mornings and that of the members in my household. We have all heard about the strange rituals some of the sports celebrities perform before, during and after their games. It is amazing how every one of us have such a unique and yet eternally repetitive behaviors, whether it is by day part, week days, monthly or even annually. It sometimes feels like we are slaves to our schedules and rituals, and days when these schedules fall apart it throws us into a state of disarray. A sense of disorder takes over and it often feels like things are quite working out. Could it just be that these repetitions create a sense of HOPE?

From the more mundane things like the lights turning on when you flip the switch to getting the top grade or promoted in your career for the investing hard work in your work or a course. In a world where brands convey trust, wouldn’t it be great to build a ritual into the brand experience whether through packaging or form. Hope is the light at the end of the tunnel, Cicero said “While there’s life there’s hope”.

May be creating rituals may create hope, let my brand enable the hope mom desires!

Direct flight

When one is in the middle of a project or recently exposed to a concept it suddenly seems like there is a disproportionate coverage on the topic or a sudden cloud fall of consumer use of the product more than you ever noticed or knew about. This same thing happened to me recently when I was leading an effort on naming a new brand.

My agency introduced me to the concept of ‘the direct flight’, “Chemistry.com” is one such example! When you talk of relationships, rarely is there any chance of misunderstanding the term chemistry. If an online dating or matching site is named Chemistry.com, the site clearly must match prospects based on attributes of personal chemistry. The idea of the brand name should be vivid and descriptive enough to take the consumer’s mind on a flight, one that is direct and leads the consumer to imagine the potential product based purely by its name.

In a world where the absence of an interactive marketing strategy spells doom for the brand the availability of a domain can drive the selection of a brand names and moreover results in strange names like, Zillow.com, Squidoo.com, etc. The phenomenon is not limited to web based services, solutions but the physical world too – Wii, Ikea, etc. the list goes on.

Brand names need more than just a direct flight; ability to own and legal protect it; expandability in the event of future extensions; executability for operations to print without stretch, distortion or fit and lastly different from existing products and brands in the category.

...and I discovered Tom Fishburne

People Buy Brands Like They Make Friends

This morning I came across an interesting article on brandchannel.com -People Buy Brands Like They Make Friends. The article proposes an alternative perspective on brand relationship as a 'friend', the bond is still strong and emotional based on a reciprocal relationship of trust and familiarity.

Some of the top lines from the article:

• Every action associated with a brand (products, advertising, events) has implications for brand friendship.
• Just like our friends, brands shape our experiences. They show up at work, at home, and everywhere in between.
• People have one great love story, if they’re lucky, but they will form several strong friendships.
• Brand just like friends could play any number of roles viz. Builder, Companion, Connector, Collaborator, Energizer, Mind Opener, Navigator, and Champion.
• Brand needs to build - TRUST, INFLUENCE, SELF-IDENTIFICATION, SHARED ACTIVITY & EVOLUTION.

Innovation is socialistic

My first car was a used Audi I bought from another student on campus. The car died a very quick and painful death, not much to expect from a student car that cost $1500? My next car was downgrade or so I thought from an Audi to a Subaru. Although the Subaru lacked the cache of the Audi and several of the features it drove well and lasted a while. As life moved on my affordability for cars meandered through many different value cars, that lacked the features, gadgets and gizmos. Between my income level and the time span, innovation drove down costs to the point that my very last value car came with the same gadgets as my premium student car from over 8 years ago.

Innovation is socialistic constantly making things easy and affordable for the masses! Shrinking lifecycles and creating renewed challenges by commoditizing the product. Branding is the only sustained solution to compete in a ‘me too’ world.

Brand proposes innovation disposes.

Marketer the demigod?

I have been interested in Osho’s philosophies for several years now. I remember listening to a segment where Osho hypothesized the drivers of Friedrich Nietzsche’s fate. Osho believed the reason Nietzsche went mad (although medical reason was syphilis) because he did not believe in god! The logic was described somewhat along the lines of, god is the source of hope to most normal people. That makes god the datum! The baseline, essentially after we put in our best it is god/fate/destiny that delivers our share of success or failure. So if one did not believe in god there would be no baseline and no hope? Nietzche went into a free fall and went mad.

We as marketers provide that ‘HOPE’ in modern society. Our consumers, are merely clusters of goals, aspirations and desires. We help associate and infuse desire into our brands we develop and manage, the portfolios of these brands into ‘esteemed’ to ‘good to have’. In an ever evolving world we create social structure. The social structure creates the framework of the cultural socio economics that is reflected in owning a BMW or a Kia and owning a Patek Phillippe or a timex.

Disagreement is the mother of ideation!

We have often read “Need is the mother of invention”, years ago I heard from a mentor “Demand is the father of imitation and innovation is the other woman”. My contribution to these axioms is that, Disagreement is the mother of ideation!

Recently during a conversation I mentioned to a couple colleagues I do not enjoyed working with people who cannot handle disagreement. I came from a culture where disagreement is often construed as disrespect. People often feel violated and resort to guilt tripping. Just imagine running a business where the top guy is either heavy handed or leveraging guilt to get his or her point, it would be a pretty difficult place to survive.

I have always believed anytime an individual confuses disagreement for disrespect, it short circuits the intellectual process. It takes a lot of self confidence to be able to accept and handle multiple points of view with ease and comfort. As a strategist one needs to be able to accept as many points of view as the number of people in a room. Anytime this requirement fails, it is obvious to me the organization has the wrong set of people or a poorly crafted reward system.

Since I believe Disagreement is the mother of ideation, the mercurial the staff the better the pipeline of ideas. It all starts at the widest end of the hopper until it converges based on style, structure, systems, staff, values skills and strategy (the McKinsey 7S model) into a single directed stream line of action!

Market size and product lifecycle

As a human I am often in my old and often traditional ways of thinking. As a marketer that relates to the classic of marketing segmentation, targeting and positioning. When we think segmentation we think in terms of Demographics - Income levels, Household sizes, Head of household, etc.

With new innovations several products overlap and strive to satisfy a common ‘want’ yet satisfying a unique ‘desire’. Personally I own three different models of iPods, two cell phones and much more. Today we have many more devices and versions of devices in our homes than people and pets combined. It is evident that as we leap frog generations of innovation (functional use or the need the product satisfies) our wants don’t necessarily follow a repeatable relationship to the demographic attributes. It is time for newer attributes that capture these ethereal characteristics of brands –
Behaviors/Attitudes – Need states, Occasions, etc.
Psychographics – Lifestyle, Likes & Dislikes, etc

Emerging markets like China and India are a perfect example that have demonstrated how the size of a middle is not a direct translation of a market opportunity. Habits and rituals influence market size, product life cycles and adoption into the culture.

Data choke!

In every role I have ever held I have noticed one specific ingredient – CHAOS! There is always more data than I need, most times less specific and irrelevant to the immediate question.

In today’s day and age of super segmented data channels there is an always increasing need for visualization there is a constant need for dashboards. These very same dashboards are the source of knowledge and confusion, which really are two sides of the same coin. The data clog in organizations, their hiring practices and role, responsibility and expectations are what drive organizations north and south.

• The single most important responsibility I have had and least recognized stems from this exact clog caused by excessive data. This noble responsibility has been the creation of structure in a chaos of data, information and knowledge.
• The second least recognized is the difference between fact and truth. Fact is simply data driven and truth is contextual.
• The third misunderstood data point relates to the difference between depth and breath of experience. Sadly neither depth nor breath can be directly related to ones ability to influence. The organization in identifying inflection points in a business and/or enable innovation through cross pollination of ideas.

The science of success

"An effective vision begins and end with value creation. Which is the only reason any business should exist." - Charles G. Koch.

"The science of success", is one of the best books I have read in a while.

I had high expectations from "Doing what matters" by James Kilts but unfortunately my expectations may have been way too high?

Examples and Inspiration from unusual sources

I had a recent conversation where I recounted episodes and incidences that drive my ideas and philosophies. One in particular I was fascinated even as I shared was a course I took years during my engineering days, and I mean YEARS ago. It was a computer aided engineering graphics class that introduced me to B-Spline and Bézier curves. It is sometimes funny how things stick and others falls off, even some of the most important and sometimes some of the most mundane things!

The concept I was trying to communicate during my conversation involved planning. Planning for the long and the short term. I was not having much luck putting my ideas across using real life examples from my very own career in a manner that my audience was able to understand so I resorted to the examples from the world I left behind. The world of numerical analysis and engineering, the world of B-Spline and Bézier curves. A B-Spline curve is a combination of individual splines that enforce localized control to ensure the direction and trajectory. Bézier curves on the other hand are vectors with global control on the direction and trajectory.

Its like saying I want to be the CEO of a company by 2020, would be akin to charting out the direction and growth trajectory based off a Bézier curve. On the flip side having a goal to head about a business unit by 2010, then a region by 2015 and a company by 2020 would be the similar to planning the direction and trajectory of a B-Spline curve.

The interesting element is the idea of the next move? The search for the next move needs to align with ones current position, while still enabling progress to the short and long term goal. Similar to the nearest neighbor algorithm. I am a strong believer in the fact that people are made up of the ideas they have and each has to find her or her inspiration. I just look back into my past for my philosophies.

I will be writing about a gauge I used in engineering to measure surface roughness soon for another example or strange sources of my inspiration.

Brand 2.0: Every Brand Is A Beta

It is often difficult for us marketers to realize that the task is never done! It is merely phases that are completed. Each of us initiates a phase and hands it off to our successors to complete the next phase. With proper strategy, skills and support the brand continues to grow and move in the intended direction but there is certainly no guarantee of that either. The Mediapost article this morning - Brand 2.0: Every Brand Is A Beta is an interesting acknowledgment of the concept. Although the focus of the article is the impact of interactive marketing on brands the idea is clear.

The top line from the article is:

• It is a chaotic world! DON'T TRY to control it, adapt with it.
• Think beyond silos, change is about blurring lines and thinking across multiple levels, disciplines and touch points.
• Conversations cannot be one way, that is broadcast. Brands are about a dialog that needs to be managed carefully.

The ideas in the article are not new and or different but like most things the cases presented just help reinforce the concepts. We all need to hear the same idea at least 15 times before we internalize them, so here we go again.

Talent Management is no Voodoo

This morning in the Knowledge@Wharton Newsletter I read an interesting article about Peter Cappelli's new book. The article - 'Talent on Demand': Applying Supply Chain Management to People does a spectacular job of conveying the need for a disciplined and regimented approach to developing talent. One that the engineers and the analytically oriented applied on the supply side in minimizing uncertainty. These are the same processes and tools that helped record tremendous productivity improvements by eliminating waste and establishment of calculated and measured processed to avoid surprises.

Organizations like P&G demonstrated this could be done on the demand side with the right consumer marketing centred processes. It is not about the individual, although he or she is responsible for making the change, building the capabilities and ensuring their indoctrination into the organization. Hunter Hastings at the EMM Group have written two books on this topic.

The Book - Talent on Demand, seems to conveys the same concept on the talent side the only grim and unfortunate part is the comparison of an individual to non-living resources. It is a shame we have to think along these lines to convey a such a simple and powerful concept? Anyway... I am just happy to see some value in the analytical and structured approach to managing talent!

Blind Men and an Elephant

As a child I heard the South Asian tale of the Blind Men and an Elephant. Recently I was reminded of the tale with reference to modern leadership models.

The moral of the story is based on one's perspective may reality may be different from the absolute truth.

A modern leader in search of the ultimate truth needs to be able to empathize with the unique perspectives of individual partial truths and sewing them into a single panoramic view of what maybe the absolute truth.

Insititutional Stockholm Syndrome

Every so often after I had read absorbed yet another book on organizational theory, strategy, leadership, etc. I sit back to think and wonder if we as individuals are captives to existing knowledge. To stretch the concept even further are we slaves to other peoples ideas and philosophies? It is no surprise that the mission, vision and value statements of most organizations sound so similar. They all promise the same principles and purpose and yet we have among them the likes of WorldCom, Enron, etc. that are placed on a high pedestal just before they loose all credibility and employee and shareholder values.

We institutionalize words and concepts from the literature but don't internalize and embody them. It is only a matter of individual convenience. Said differently, "I cannot think for myself and since I have been bound by what I have read, heard and was told I believe it, empathize with it and will try to embody what ever best I can". Isn't it Stockholm syndrome when the captive starts to believe and empathize with the mission and vision of his or her captor?

Are we in an institutional Stockholm syndrome? Where have all the cowboys gone?

Position, Velocity, Acceleration, Jerk, Snap, Crackle, Pop

Thats a heavy title for an essay. Hang in there with a little patience and you will see what I am trying to get to... I know few people who have slept well the night before the Calculus exam or even the advanced Physics test whether it was in high school, college or even in applying to grad school problems. Rest assured this will not get as complicated!

The essay has its genesis in a email I drafted to friend and colleague regarding organizations and my motivational drivers that attract me to a role. I have written about the concept in the past through the tag Talent Management, although over time I feel like I have graduated to a relatively higher level influenced by the concept of Emotional Intelligence.

Anyway back to the topic I started thinking of... It is fascinating how organization are designed based on positional measures. Let me explain what I mean by this comment. You read any job description or even a company value proposition when attracting talent. The message is usually focused on tasks, actions may be outcomes and behaviors. Nowhere will you even find a mention of the first order differential - Change and Rate of change (the gradient).

At a worldly level I am motivated by Challenge-Recognition-Compensation but once a role begins to deliver on my threshold of expectations the bar rises. The best part of this human expectation model is the bar rises faster and faster as we continue to get better with managing single dimensional worldly into the multidimensional worldly and in multidimensional surreal (philosophical changes, behavioral and attitudinal changes in people around us and those that matter to the desired results).

So why is it that so few organization talk about this gradient? We already know the basics from Physics -

• Rate of change in Position/Location is Velocity - first order difference
  
• Rate of change in Velocity is Acceleration - second order difference
  
• Rate of change in Acceleration is Jerk/Jolt - third order difference
  
• Rate of change in Jerk/Jolt is Snap - fourth order difference
  
• Rate of change in Snap is Crackle - fifth order difference
  
• Rate of change in Crackle is Pop - sixth order difference
  

I don't expect us to get to the 6th order differential ever but I don't see why we could not get to the 2nd? This needs a new mind, a new philosophy and new measures.

(the physics terminology has been drawn on the article - Third derivative of position)

Doing Things Right

Stanford Knowledgebase had an interesting article recounting a presentation by Paul Idzik chief operating officer at international financial services firm Barclays PLC.

One of my favorite comments was...

• "Conflict-driven discussion leads to really enhanced decision making as the best ideas battle for supremacy."

Additional commentary by Paul Idzik was summarized as follows:

• “Separate fact from opinion. One of the constant errors that bright young people make is they mix their opinions in with the facts. It lets people avoid the topic because you have put your opinion in there, and they start focusing on your opinion rather than the facts.”
• “Try to find a target that is difficult to deny the attractiveness of, and therefore you can at least agree on the point that you want to get to.”
• “Try to agree on a short timeframe … something we can solve in a reasonable time.”
• “Focus on the situational conflict, and steer clear of the personal conflict.”
• “Make sure you create a time and place to have one-on-one discussions.”
• “Don’t think you’re Henry Kissinger. Don’t think you can help two senior people negotiate the peace treaty, because you are likely to become either a prisoner of war or a casualty.”
• “Try to get the boss to put a deadline on moving forward.”
• "Keep your resume updated.”

The strategy conduit

Last week while reading the post Questionating on changethis.com I started to think about the planning process. Corinne Miller the author of the article presented a interesting perspective on the How? Why? & Why Not? collectively contribute to completing an organization, Ms. Miller says "We like to say that questions open the innovation pipeline."

Organizations like successful individuals and ones that are "a peg that fit a hole". A fundamental quality of a leader needs to be his or her ability to be comfortable with contrarian opinions in his/her mind and contrarian opinions within his/her team. Ms. Miller suggests being "Process and Procedure oriented" to enable creating a culture of Questionating.

I tried to conceptualize this process into a visual, that I refer to as the strategy conduit.

Is culture STOIC?

Every individual I have ever conversed with on the issue of leadership, organization converges on the topic of culture. The culture of an organization, how they are unique, how they indoctrinate and on and on. There are sections of books in the library dedicated to the topic and probably several hundreds of thousands of hours of research that has been translated into published literature on the topic.

Obviously like all these friends and acquaintances I have opinions and quite like most of these individuals has some element of empirical evidence to substantiate my point of view and a fair bit of hypothesis based on who I am and where I came from (or where I have been).

The reason for this essay of mine is much less to discuss this perspective but to debate over...

• Whether culture is immaculate (a shield, like The house of Windsor)?
  
• Whether culture is a organizations legacy?
  
• Whether culture is a label?
  
• Whether culture is an open door?

I believe it is all of the above with the open door being the top and most important. The one thing is isn't is STOIC! I tried to look for a dictionary definition of the word and the one I liked the most was from the Merriam-Webster Collegiate dictionary.

the act or process of cultivating living material in prepared nutrient media; also : a product of such cultivation

If culture is living, how could it be stoic? Which supports my next argument that as new living beings are born they evolve and bring their own special flavor, their own unique touch to the cultivation of the next generation. Obviously culture needs to be an open door one that imparts as much as it absorbs and evolves.

I think the gate keepers of the culture who boast, "this is not who we are and what we do", beware! If you are not osmotic your days may be numbered, worse yet if the organization does not adapt, look for help or prepare for death.

Somethings are timeless

Yesterday evening I watched the movie GANDHI, On Demand. I realized some leadership traits are timeless!

• Fundamental change takes time
• Fundamental change starts at the bottom of the pyramid (grass roots)
• Fundamental change only occurs with credible leadership
• Credibility is both visual and latent
• Credibility is multiplicative
• Performance and perception need to be managed
  
• Deviation from normality is not doomed
• Dissenters and Detractors to a philosophy cannot derail a credible leader
• Leadership means commitment and confidence
• Leadership means accepting shortfalls
• Leadership means acknowledging failure and retooling
• Leadership is constantly tested
• Leadership is honesty
• Leadership is strategic
• Pass opportunity in favor of substantiating appropriate cultural attributes
  

Modern change needs speed and is often managed with minimally credible individual/s (one with limited credibility inside the organization under going change). The speed is accelerated through strong sponsorship from the top of the pyramid. Assuming the top of the pyramid has build credibility and has the complete trust of the bottom of the pyramid to empower the change agent by sharing or rather lending their personal credibility.

A night and day with Heidi

I had been interacting with her for a couple years now but some how I could never ask her name. Not that I am an introvert in fact quite the opposite, most friends tell me I am one of the most extroverted individual they have known. I guess Heidi always responded to the questions in the third person and I stuck to pronouns. Addressing on first name basis was never needed?

It was only last year when I went for a drive with a friend who told me her name was Heidi. I had always enjoyed her company and have been a tremendous fan of her patience and politeness. To me she is a role model, a feat I aspire when dealing with people around me. Ever try going anywhere with a knowledgeable passenger or more like a co-driver and it is a challenge. They give you advice after advice, even huff and puff at times under the breath at each mistake. Heidi is quite a dame, in her polite and submissive voice she suggests following her directions and if you avoid taking her advice she simply does not mind.

She is very accommodating with a positive outlook and a calm demeanor with a singular focus to get you to your destination. I spent an entire day with her last week over a 1000 mile journey and she was absolutely amazing. She is very adaptable what I expect in a friend and sometimes in service especially when I am paying for it. Last year I met her friend Crystal who is just as great and paid top dollars for her service.

We never travel anywhere without her and she is happy to occupy the space in our glove box when we don't need her services. Who says customer service is not what it used to be? We just need the right teacher and the personality of a programmed device. The Garmins, Tom-Toms, Magellans, etc. have done just that.

Innovation is a change philosophy

Innovation needs to be a pathological process in the positive sense. Innovation needs to be in the blood stream, pumping through the arteries and veins of an organization. Innovation is not just about a product process but a change philosophy. Following is an excerpt from a HBR post - Making Innovation Everyone's Job.

Today innovation is the buzzword du jour, but there’s still a yawning chasm between rhetoric and reality. If you doubt this, seek out a few entry-level employees and ask them the following questions:

1. How have you been equipped to be a business innovator? What training have you received? What tools have you been supplied with?

2. Do you have access to an innovation coach or mentor? Is there an innovation expert in your unit who will help you develop your breakout idea?

3. How easy is it for you to get access to experimental funding? How long would it take you to get a few thousand dollars in seed money? How many levels of bureaucracy would you have to go through?

4. Is innovation a formal part of your job description? Does your compensation depend in part on your innovation performance?

5. Do your company’s management processes—budgeting, planning, staffing, etc.—support your work as an innovator or hinder it?

Mercer Study Shows Respect is #1 with Employees Worldwide

This post was centered on leadership but I believe it is as true with our brands -

Engagement seems to have replaced "empowerment" as the Holy Grail of corporate relationship with people. We want you to be engaged with our company, our goals, our stock, our products, our website ... you get the idea.

To couples all over the world engagement represents love, loyalty and commitment ... presumably leading to life-long marriage.

It's easier to make the analogy with customers. Think Tide, Ivory Soap, Kleenex. Many of us use the same familiar products we grew up with. But are there any employees (in Corporate America, at least), even those most engaged, who believe that in exchange, their employers will be equally engaged to them?

If you've ever worked on a team, chances are you've experienced some pretty dysfunctional relationships. While more pleasant, I've found it's not essential for us to form deep interpersonal relationships with the people we work with. It makes sense; we rarely form these relationships with anyone. Yet, sometimes despite ourselves, we can work together to get the job done.

On the other hand, respect is the one element a team can't do without. Team members can't give it their all unless they know the others can and will deliver (or at least give it their all).

But there's a rub. We don't all see respect in the same way. For some, it's earned; for others, it's a given, unless lost. It's shaped by our life experiences.

I was excited to learn that the large HR consulting group Mercer found the same result. The firm's What's Working study asked employees in 22 countries around the world about their attitudes and perceptions of 12 factors that contribute to engagement. You can go the site to download a free pdf of "Engaging Employees to Drive Global Success."

Worldwide, of the 12 factors, respect was rated overall as the one that most influences their engagement at work. It was rated first with employees in the US.

Not so with employees working in different countries. For example, workers in France and India chose type of work for the top slot. They found some big differences from country to country. For workers in the UK, being able to provide good customer service was rated highly but not so in Japan, where it was ranked last.

The researchers learned that differences in national cultural, the state of economic development and economic conditions accounted for very different answers. Organizational differences also have a big impact.

This means context matters. There's no silver bullet or cookie-cutter solution to encourage employee engagement. But if you haven't surveyed your employees about what gets them charged up about your company, it seems you can't go too far afield starting with fostering respect.

Can people forget to think?

I had a recent experience that surprised me and forced me a ask the fundamental question “can people forget to think?”.

I have a strong feeling we can forget to think! An organization that limits strategizing, planning and decision making to the elite few can result in a lame duck staff that is monotonic in every way. In particular common sense is the first to leave the individuals.

Just like muscles atrophy when they are not exercised, we forget names of old acquaintances we don’t keep in touch often enough and forget locations of items we rarely use. We can forget to think!

It is a shame, given the single differentiating criteria of humans is out ability to think and plan ahead!

My conspiracy theory buddies have presented me with a different perspective. They believe it could always be a mutiny, the sort of a rebellion to corporate policy?

May be I underestimate the power of the mind sometimes?

My muse

"I don't procrastinate, I just don't like to do things."

This is funny!!

Homophily

"The principle that organizations seek out partners that are similar along various dimensions because shared traits make it easier to trust and understand one another."

Now thats a strange sounding word?

I was reading an article in Columbia Ideas@Work this evening and came across an interesting piece of research - When familiarity breeds connections. The perspectives in the article sound way too familiar to many of us from academy companies, the likes of Procter & Gamble, General Electric, IBM, etc. (remember Jim Collins'; Built to Last).

I think the popular translation of 'Homophily' is 'Cultural fit'.

"Imaginational Era"

Another article this morning that caught my attention - From Survival of the Fastest to the Thriving of the Fastest in Mediapost.

I liked parts of the article, some of it made a lot of sense!

Three key themes will define the coming Imaginational Era: Fantasy as Fuel, The Genetics of Aesthetics, and Expansion and Discovery.

Consumer Cohesion

Interesting perspective on communities of brand zealots on Brand Channel.

Consumer Cohesion: A Brand Blueprint

In order to facilitate a less protracted relationship between the brand and the customer, so as to limit or ideally eliminate the negative sentiment entirely, we have the following roadmap.

I)Pre-empt the inevitable formation of some kind of communities and the opinions that invariably go with it It is very common for consumers to compare their experiences for every product from masalas to their Bose sound systems, and in doing so, to feel a sense of community. While it is a basic need to share and relate, what also contributes to this behaviour is the emotional need of wanting to express themselves through these affiliations.

This need to affiliate is what drives users to join 198 online ‘communities’ while writing little to nothing on their actual profiles on social network websites such as Orkut. The mode of expression has shifted from the self-proclaiming words, to the more nonchalant depiction of one’s interests and inclinations through these communities.

We feel that a brand should pre-empt the formation of these de-facto communities by inviting consumers to relate, share & interact on the brand’s very own ‘premises’. The brand should make the first move in inviting its users to a forum where they can have this kind of interaction. This enables the brand to bring the consumers closer to its fold and maybe even engage with it actively.

II)Product and service improvement through customer feedback Engaging with your customer at any forum and / or observing interaction among various users of your brand can yield powerful and compelling insights relating to product or service quality. In essence, it acts like an inadvertent focus group discussion of sorts, which is the best kind as it is much likelier to yield truthful and relevant insights as opposed to those derived from discussions conducted in the presence of market researchers. III) Pre-empt positive word of mouth Once a marketer has preempted the community formation and invited the audience/consumers to congregate on its own brand’s territory, this experience has to be based on the core consumer insight that the brand operates on. The result of this exercise is that instead of leaving it purely to the markets for the customer to use and then appreciate your product, the marketer preempts this experience and enhances it by adding a pleasant and strong sensory memory to the customer’s overall experience with the product.

IV)Pre-empt negative word-of-mouthNow we come to a point where we are gearing the brand for crisis, if one were to ever arise. The best case scenario in the face of a crisis, after the brand owner has gone through the steps of Consumer Cohesion mentioned above, is that the brand faces widespread negative sentiment among the general public for some error, but the ‘community’ of consumers it has helped foster and which now thrives independently as an active social group, is still on its side. This community still believes in the brand. What emerges is an organized, coherent, single-voiced shout in support of the brand in opposition to the negative, fragmented cacophony that is bashing it.

The worst case scenario will be that this ‘community’ too loses confidence in the brand and joins the denigrating crowds opposing the brand. However, because this ‘community’, though seeded by the brand itself, has now evolved into a spontaneous, self-sustaining social group, they are still likely to speak in a single voice and single line of reason, albeit against the brand.

This gives the brand owner the latitude of addressing rebuttals, explanations and/or counter-arguments simply on the basis of the stance this community takes, as they are highly likely to be the single loudest voice in the debate on the brand’s opposing side (i.e. if the brand owners do their groundwork right). This scenario, needless to say, is infinitely less painful than having to rebut and defend against fragmented and incoherent mob negativity. Clearly, the clincher in any such case will lie with the brand’s corporate communication, advertising and public relations team to get the message across in a strategic, secure and convincing manner.

Essentially, what happens is, because of Consumer Cohesion, even in times of crisis when the brand’s own community has turned against itself, at least the opponent is a large, discernible target with cogent accusations. This enables the brand to prepare an equally crisp and relevant defense, rather than just having to shield itself from brickbats from an unreasoning public anger.

The conclusion certainly is on the money.

Expensive brands need to be insured against market and public opinion vagaries if they are to stay in business past the inevitable crises they are bound to face sometime in their lifecycles. Consumer Cohesion is an approach to doing just that and ensuring that the brand’s groundwork and defense are in prime shape to face marketing warfare.

Storytelling & Branding

I just came across an article by John Quelch in Marketing KnowHow from this mornings HBS newsletter. The points John makes are just as relevant to B2C marketing as they are to B2B.

An HBS research team recently conducted a study of top B2B global brands. They shared the following six characteristics:

1. The CEO is a willing brand cheerleader, loves the brand heritage and is a great storyteller. The CMO sees his or her purpose as helping the CEO achieve this role.

2. The CEO understands that building brand reputation reduces commercial risk, insulates the company in a crisis and provides the common purpose that can bond all the company’s stakeholders.

3. Efforts are focused on a single, global corporate brand rather than individual product brands.

4. The payback on marketing expenditures is measured rigorously to the satisfaction of the hard-nosed engineers and finance staff who run the typical B2B enterprise.

5. Coordination of company websites worldwide to present a consistent face to stakeholders is the best way to get control of marketing communications that may have become too decentralized.

May be the CEO involvement is relatively small but by no means any less significant than for a B2B brand.

Believe it, the Wal-Mart savings could be TRUE!!

Last year when I read The Wal-Mart Effect I was very impressed at the scale of transformation a single corporation can have on a generation. I took the time to follow-up on some of the research mentioned in the book. I visited Dr. Emek Basker's website at the University of Missouri to read her analysis and ensuing publication on, The Causes and Consequences of Wal-Mart's Growth, (Journal of Economic Perspectives 21:3 (Summer 2007) 177-198). This morning when I read the article "What Wal-Mart Savings Claim Doesn't Tell You" in Ad Age I had no reservations believing Wal-Mart.

I say cheers to Wal-Mart economics!

I strongly believe most products at Wal-Mart are Okay, Available and Cheap but the innovation it forces and the price pressure it creates on its suppliers establish a certain Wal-Martian socialism.

I am no fan of any socialistic system but it has worked. From making products available to Americans at an affordable price, to creating a consumer culture globally to developing unsustainable practices of consumer use and throw of products and even the Salmon farming example from Southern Chile; Wal-Mart has made a profound impact. One that is well beyond the $2500 savings the retail store claims to generate for every American household whether they shop at Wal-Mart or not!

BCG - Leadership Perspectives

I was browsing the web when I came across a mention of George Stalk of BCG. His retirement speech was published in a the 'BCG Perspectives' in April 2007.

Here some nuggets of wisdom -

• All investments must be Fast, Focused & Fundamental
• Say Yes or No, but never say Maybe
• Keep your people - Employees, Customers, Suppliers & Financiers - informed
• Leaders don't get more than one chance.

C&D - P&G's Innovation model revisited

From Harvard Business Online: Connect & Develop - Procter & Gamble's Innovation Model.

The Idea in Practice:

Know Where to Look

Before scouring the world for ideas you might develop into profitable products, clarify what you’re looking for:

• Identify consumer needs. Ask business unit leaders which consumer needs, when satisfied, will drive their brands’ growth. Translate needs into briefs describing problems to solve. Consider where you might seek solutions.

Example: P&G unit managers identified a need for laundry detergent that cleans effectively in cold water. They decided to search for relevant innovations in chemistry and biotechnology solutions that enable products to work well at low temperatures. Possibilities included labs studying enzymatic reactions in microbes that thrive under polar caps.

• Identify adjacencies. Ask which new product categories, related to your current categories, can enhance your existing brand equity. Then seek innovative ideas in those categories.

Example: P&G expanded its Crest brand beyond toothpaste to include whitening strips, power toothbrushes, and flosses.

Leverage Your Networks

Cultivate both proprietary and open networks whose members may have promising ideas.

Example: P&G’s proprietary networks include its top 15 suppliers, who collectively have 50,000 R&D staff. It created a secure IT platform to share problem briefs with these suppliers—who can’t see others’ responses to briefs. One chemical supplier, for example, may have ideas for making detergent perfume last longer after clothes finish drying.

P&G’s open networks include NineSigma, a company that connects interested corporations with universities, government and private labs, and consultants that can develop solutions to science and technology problems. NineSigma creates briefs describing contracting companies’ problems and sends them to thousands of possible solution providers worldwide.

Distribute and Screen Ideas

You’ve identified ideas for refining and further commercializing existing products or for employing technology solutions to create new products. Now distribute these ideas internally—ensuring that managers screen them for potential.

Example: At P&G, product ideas are logged on P&G’s online “eureka catalog,” through a template documenting pertinent facts—such as current sales of existing products or patent availability for a new technology. The document goes to P&G general managers, brand managers, and R&D teams worldwide. Product ideas are also promoted to relevant business line managers, who gauge their business potential and identify possible obstacles to development.

Promote Openness to External Ideas

Encourage use of outside ideas. For example, P&G rewards employees for speed of product development. Incentives thus favor innovation developed from outside ideas, since these often move more quickly from concept to marketplace.

"The phrase 'time is money' is an insult to time." - Unknown Citibank Advertising Agency

This is interesting, its proactive and fundamental! I bet the individual who coined the phrase "Time is money" was either an investor, accountant, a strategist? I can't blame the originator only because the only method we ever learn when comparing multiple things together is to assign monetary value to the comparative elements.

Talent Management is a Competitive Advantage

I am a strong believe in a robust talent management process. I will lay my hands on any article/s or books that discuss cases and strategies on the subject. I have liked several of them over the years and have applied and prospered from their knowledge in many of my endeavors. Recently I I came across one such article on FastCompany - Retaining Younger Workers in the Workplace.

The article provided a perspective on myths most organizations harbor about younger employees. Not too long ago there was a book in the same subject area by the name Generations at Work by Ron Zemke.

Over the years I realized there was something common and distinctly missing from most literature on the subject. They all talk about some of the same challenges, the same set of solutions, they all have frameworks and models, that are presented as a company wide program.

My take is we need a Meta Framework not a framework itself! A second order solution, one that fits above an existing model (clearly some of the models are good, but not executed aptly in my view):

1. One size does not fit all!
2. Constant evolution
3. Feedback & Feedforward.
   

Talent Management programs need to be unique - One size does not fit all!
In addition to the generational differences we have significant regional and cultural differences. Just within the US, people in the North East are significantly different in thought and philosophies about work, life than the Mid Westerners and the West Coasters. The values placed in organization, rewards, speed of action and culture are eons apart even between these large unstructured segments. Yet companies take the principles from a HBS program or a McKinsey Quarterly article or a think tank or a best seller book and apply in broad brush strokes independent of the company, its location, its peoples background and history. We need to invest and INVEST HEAVILY to understand the culture first!

Talent Management programs are slow to adapt - Accelerate evolution
In the internet and mobile age, information spreads at a staggering pace. That applies to Talent management models that work and ones that fail. The unfortunate part is we don't experiment enough both in quality and quantity by reinvesting in the feedback we receive. Archaic models stick around for long periods in time because people don't measure the results of the stimulus or have deliberately chosen to ignore the signals. In addition organizational alignment, structures, processes and rewards are usually among the last areas for market research and testing.

Talent Management programs are not collaborative - They are all prescriptive
The most critical flaw I have noticed the cases, perspectives and implementation of research is still the nature and intent of program execution. Most programs tend to be prescriptive, requiring the talent pool to be boxed in one reward and recognition system or the other. None are setup for a active feedback and feedforward processes. This is not a direct evolution argument as much as it is knowing what matters to the talented individual who is being incented into delivering consistent top performance while contributing to the companies strategic long term objectives and goals.

Capabilities

Yesterday I came across a interesting article in the Science Journal Section of WSJ - Scientists Using Maps Of Genes for Therapies Are Wary of Profiling. James Watson the Nobel Laureate for his work with Francis Crick on the Double Helix was deprecated for his position on eugenics. There have been a lot of new discoveries and updates in gene mapping that are raising eyebrows. The article blatantly acknowledged the lack of maturity of our species in expressing ourselves in words.

I started writing this essay because the WSJ reminded me of a recent experience. I had embarked on a knowledge management effort... I did the classic - talked about the opportunity to the stakeholders, the intangible side of KM, the process and the rewards. At the end of it I initiated a number of tasks to capture the tacit knowledge and codify it into documents, images, sounds but I quickly realized I could never capture the mind of the individual. There is clearly a LOT MORE to the human mind than just the data and information store. It is the process of transforming that information into knowledge, the multiple dimensions across which the mind is capable of thinking, the associations the mind makes, evaluates and processes the associations into thoughts, ideas until it delivers it into words. Not to get into the neurology of data and knowledge transformation but I was convinced that 'capabilities building' is a motivation more than the physical act of capturing and systematizing it.

I guess capturing knowledge is a cultural process. One that includes the steps in understanding how everyone else may be thinking and then knowing what they know and how they use it. The last step is the system!

“Damn Right” this is Serious!

Talk about REAL, BOLD and somewhat BRAZEN but truly AUTHENTIC. This morning in the MediaPost was an article on Canadian Club Whisky’s new Campaign – Damn Right!

"Damn Right Your Dad Drank It."
"Your Mom Wasn't Your Dad's First,"
"Your Dad Was Not a Metrosexual"
"Your Dad Never Got a Pedicure."

Provocative and pugnacious! Cheers to Jim Beam and BBDO.

Martin Lindstrom I disagree!

Ad Age - The Curious Misnomer of 'Global' Brands - Yesterday I came across an article in MediaPost that linked to a post by Martin Lindstrom of AdAge. The article was an absolute antithesis to the concept of a BRAND. It gave me another reason to question the "PROMISE" of Publications like AdAge?

The basis of Mr. Lindstrom's article was localization of brands and the absence of a true global brands, given their adaptation to local cultures. I wish to ask Mr. Lindstrom what he considers a "BRAND"?

To me and in my understanding most marketers believe a the simplest level a "BRAND" is not much more than a "TRUST (brand promise)" and a "VISUAL (Logo)". As long as the local execution of a brand preserves the promise and the logo it is in keeping with the equity the brand represents! So who cares if Coca Cola has more than 30 different regional flavors for coke? Who cares if Mamma Mia has unique regional gestures as part of their performance & ensemble varies? They still stand for the same exact thing, their promise! Airlines are a fabulous example of global brands they go to the extent of preserving even the cabin aroma independent of the origin and destination of the flight (Mr. Lindstrom's article on Singapore arilines).

May be Ad Age needs to get back to basics to reevaluate what they mean by a brand and more so what they promise?

Does 'Social Bookmarks' have anything to do with trust?

Not to philosophize or anything but I was wondering what is trust? I was on a website that had the classic social bookmarking links the usual suspects - MSN, Yahoo, Digg, Technorati, Del.icio.us, etc. as I scanned through the images my mind wandered to the idea of why should anyone want to check the links I have bookmarked? Other than myself or the government as part of some unknown NSA tracking scheme? The simplest answer I could come up with was "Birds of a feather, flock together". Someone who enjoys reading my essays may share the same passion and fascination for information and as such my bookmarks could offer him or her that elusive link to a site that will open a treasure of knowledge?

It took me 125 words, 575 characters to describe a simple concept in "trust" or structure in chaos. What is the market for this trust, especially since most social bookmarking is not monetized? How does one assess convergence in trust? Shouldn't trust take investment to build? Who is measuring and tracking this investment? Is this what the community refers to as "Engagement"?

I guess I am in doubt? So is social bookmarking?

Creativity & Change Management

For many years as I trudged through my corporate career I thought what differentiated me was my creativity. My ability to think different in working around the issues that lead to the doors of corporate glory. I equated my creativity to my entrepreneurship, my ability to make things work for me but often ended up taking a few steps ahead and multiple steps behind. My solutions were often too complicated for my managers, colleagues and my reports to understand, not to toot my own horn but I thought of it as my genius that left most people baffled (not scared, just baffled).

After many rounds of trying, learning and trying again I realized a very fundamental precept (Many thanks to my mentors for accelerating this learning); In a corporate role it is ones ability to make change, manage change, communicate change, enroll sponsors, engage managers and deploy change that is measured and rewarded. On the other end as the system recognizes your ability to align and drive the change it is creativity that starts to take center stage. Leading right back into making the new and different entrepreneurial solution to be accepted, adopted and deployed.

It is interesting to hear the same stories from my protege. He thinks he is creative and notices obvious opportunities that others miss and yet his suggestions are bounced off deaf ears. Are organizations just not smart enough or are they lacking leaders that have the heart to drive change?

Adtunes.com

Adtunes.com - I came across the site through a post on ANA - Mestros. I remember those days when our consumer affairs department received calls to help identify the consumer the music in one of the copy streams?

The site is amazing and so was the post. I wonder if there is a way to measure ROI off the queries on the site and also an association with share of mind and recall/decay of the creative?

Surreal or Serious?

I had a great day at the museum the other day, saw artwork by my favorite artist Salvador Dali. That evening when I retired to my study to ruminate over the day I had a strange thought, like always Dali had left me thinking about the artwork and what may have been running through his mind when he painted his masterpieces. The idea of penetrating into his mind was both trying and puzzling, some of his early surrealistic work is somewhat scary.

I can't believe how many times I felt like that when I see products on shelves across the country and around the world. We create products and then find a market for them. Somewhat like the patrons experience standing in front of a surreal artwork in the museum. It is one thing to be the first to market, communicate a value proposition and initiate a dialog BUT it is a whole different thing to have target consumer segment, identify her needs and develops products and solutions she will embrace. Fortunately there is more science than art to modern marketing. It is a repeatable process unlike art where each piece of art is a new start.

Interestingly a scientific process has posterity to it where as art could be a serious gamble. One could end up at the Museum or on the aisle to be painted over?

"QUALITY"

I believed with a movement over 40 years in the making would have congruence and convergence in its meaning and interpretation? As I started ruminated over an experience, I wanted to know if etymology of the word ‘Quality’ and whether it reflected a penchant towards the producer or the consumer. I was pleasantly surprised, when I visited Wikipedia for the etymology - From Middle English, from Old French qualite, from Latin qualitatem, accuative of qualitas, from qualis (of what kind), from Proto-Indo-European pronomial base *kwo- ("who", "how"). It is believed that Cicero coined qualitas as a calque to translate the Greek word ποιότης ("quality"), from ποῖος ("of what nature", "of what kind").

“Who”, “how” – Yoo Hoo! I thought to myself… the proclivity is definitely towards the consumer, the user, the “Who”, and “How” she or he chooses to use, apply or merely CONSUME the product. I have been a long time believer in the fact that quality is what ‘the consumer’, ‘the customer’ makes or perceives of the product or services (I do remember some text book definition from my engineering days). As for me ‘the producer’ or ‘the purveyor’ may believe or think highly of the goods and services BUT if my consumer does not place the same or enough value in their quality of the merchandise means nothing… nada!

While I felt good I did feel a little uncomfortable about ‘the’ experience. I recently spent time with an executive who believed that ‘quality’ is their diligence and effort invested in the products and services they offer and as long as the performance indicators identified upfront were met and or exceeded the “promise” had been kept? I must say I beg to differ! All I had to say was lets stop focusing on QUALITY and start focusing on the CUSTOMER, the CONSUMER let her define the standards, let her define the baseline and quality will happen! Quality is truly the price of entry not a value-add unless we operate in a monopoly.

OpenAds...

When I read the article on Advertising Age this morning I was impressed but quickly that feeling turned inside out... is OpenAds another form of UGC for agencies? Are the professionals just up to some fun or is it for real? With big names like Gillette and P&G, there must be some meat on the bone. Clearly the cases and the article in Financial Times made it that much more credible. Yet, I remain a skeptic? There is something about the concept that seems too good to be true? For starters:

• Longitude & relationship with the agency
  
• Ownership & Commitment from the agency
• Security (the risk of share, learn & reapply)
  

The one thing that I agree is an open system is always richer than a closed one! On that note I was reminded of a poster (sponsored by Ameriquest) I saw by the Chelsea Pier in New York city last year - "Imagination Begins with Inspiration"

Building Winning Brands

Branding Strategy Insider: Building Winning Brands

1. Brands are personifications of organizations, products, services and experiences and they are the source of relationships.
2. Top management support is crucial to a brand’s success.
3. A brand’s identity must be frequently and consistently presented.
4. Profound customer knowledge is essential to building winning brands.
5. The brand and its products and services must exceed customer expectations.
6. Brand building begins with awareness.
7. Relevant differentiation drives customer brand insistence.
8. A brand should strive to evoke emotions and create sensory experiences.
9. A brand should exhibit admirable human qualities.
10. A brand must stand for something.
11. Constant product and service innovation build strong brands.
12. A brand should strive to create a sense of community.
13. The corporate culture must reinforce the brand essence, promise and personality.
14. Internal brand building is essential to external brand building.
15. Front line employees are key to a brand’s success.
16. Co-creating a brand with its customers will help the brand continue to thrive.

From the Blake Project.

EVOLUTION: production to consumption to innovation economy

A while ago I started writing this essay but never completed it, not sure why? The other day as I started backing up my drive and noticed the file AND as soon as I opened it I had a spark and decided to complete and post it.

It is rare to visit a bookstore (brick mortar or online) and not find a book on the consumer opportunity in BRIC countries. The PPP of the market and its potential, is a brown/green pasture for most marketers. I like to think of it as the threshold in transforming from a ‘production economy’ into a ‘consumption economy’.

As marketers it is our imperative to identify her unmet needs, know her as a consumer, understand her as a shopper and engage with her. Create cultural meaning for her unmet need and present her solutions to create those WOW experiences. Communication through the glitz and glamour of advertising and at other times through maven like brand ambassadors.

But this is a SHIFT. A shift in culture from deliberate spending avoidance, saving, picking up products that were okay and cheap to impulse buying, brands as extensions of our personal image and personal gratification from worldly products. It is up to the marketing community to create convincing value proposition to enable this transformation.

This is only the start of the ‘innovation economy’!

The top ten collection...

I came across the top ten list of Viral Campaigns as posted by the Time (UK).

The top ten viral ad campaigns

Adverts so good people choose to watch them? Send them to their friends, even? Times Online reports on what makes viral ads infectious

Marketing Myopia

I just read an article on Green Marketing Myopia, reminded me of an old article that was also referenced in the article - Marketing Myopia by Theodore Levitt (Harvard Business Review, Sep/Oct75, Vol. 53 Issue 5, p26-183, 16p; (AN 3867290))

The classics of innovation discussed by Ted Levitt are timeless. The article elaborates the strategies marketers have applied to avoid marketing myopia - "The Three Cs" -

• Consumer value positioning

• Calibration of consumer knowledge

• Credibility of product claims.

The following nuggets are from the article.

Consumer Value Positioning

• Design environmental products to perform as well as (or better than) alternatives.
• Promote and deliver the consumer-desired value of environmental products and target relevant consumer market segments (e.g., target money savings benefits to cost-conscious consumers).
• Broaden mainstream appeal by bundling (or adding) consumer-desired value into environmental products (such as fixed pricing for subscribers of renewable energy).

Calibrate Consumer Knowledge

• Educate consumers with marketing messages that connect environmental product attributes with desired consumer value (for example, "pesticide-free produce is healthier"; energy-efficiency saves money" or "solar-power is convenient".)
• Frame environmental product attributes as "solutions" for consumer needs, for example, "rechargeable batteries offer longer performance." With indoor air quality a growing concern and fumes from paints, carpets, and furniture now linked to headaches, eye, nose, and throat irritation, dizziness, and fatigue, Sherwin Williams offers "Harmony," a line of interior paints that is low-odor, zero-VOC (Volatile Organic Compound) and silica-free.
• Create engaging and educational Internet sites about environmental products' desired value, e.g., Tide Coldwater's interactive website allows visitors to calculate their likely annual money savings based on their laundry habits, utility source (gas or electricity) and zip code location.

Credibility of Product Claims

• Make sure that environmental product and consumer claims are specific, meaningful, and qualified. Liken to comparable alternatives or likely usage scenarios. Recognizing the ambiguity of the term green, Toyota dismissed a slogan for Prius, "Drive Green, breathe Blue" in favor of "Less gas in. Less gasses out."
• Underscore credibility with product endorsements or eco-certifications from trustworthy third parties, and educate consumers about the meaning behind those endorsements and eco-certifications. More than 40 product categories now bear the Energy Star seal.
• Encourage positive word of mouth via consumers' social and Internet communication networks with compelling, interesting, and/or entertaining information about environmental products. Increasingly, consumers have grown skeptical of commercial messages, and they're turning to friends and peers for advice. The Internet, through e-mail and its vast, accessible repository of information, websites, search engines, blogs, product ratings sites, podcasts, and other digital platforms, has opened significant opportunities for tapping consumers' social and communication networks to diffuse credible "word-of-mouse" (buzz facilitated by the Internet) about green products. The website for Tide's Coldwater Challenge includes a map of the United States so visitors can track and watch their personal influence spread when their friends request a free sample.

GREEN - A sustainable competitive advantage advantage

Wal-Mart is not the first and most obvious brand that comes to ones mind when one thinks of sustainability or green, BUT over the recent past the buzz around Wal-Mart's efforts have been phenomenal. Clearly the PR agency of choice has done wonders and the coverage has put Wal-Mart above the effort of retailers like Whole Foods.

WMT's efforts on developing and maintaining a sustainable supply chain network is truly noteworthy and a great lesson for the up and coming partners, suppliers and competitors - The Greening of Wal-Mart's Supply Chain.

Some nuggets for the readers.

Implementing New Supply Chain Strategies
1. Identifying Goals, Metrics, and New Technologies
2. Certifying Environmentally Sustainable Products
3. Providing Network Partner Assistance to Suppliers
4. Committing to Larger Volumes of Environmentally Sustainable Products
5. Cutting out the Middleman
6. Consolidating Direct Suppliers
7. Restructuring the Buyer Role
8. Licensing Environmental Innovations

Three Traps to Avoid
1. ncreased costs
2. a sub-optimal product assortment
3. criticism of factory labor conditionsIdentifying Goals, Metrics, and New Technologies

Me & my love machine

I came across an article in the Times this morning - Me and my love machine obviously I was intrigued... we men and our cars! The article segmented the populous into a few rudimentary buckets... interesting reading.

INSTRUMENTALISTS

Often have names for their cars.

Tolerate failings or idiosyncracies in cars.

Subconsciously believe that cars respond in an emotional rather than a rational way.

Are affectionate about a car’s failings, but can be frightened that they are not in control of the technology.

Tend to prefer cars that cater for different needs at the same time; for example, sporty saloons.

EXPRESSIVES

See cars as a tool to explore their competence.

Drive at high speed when the opportunity presents.

Regard journeys as a test of man and machine.

Prize being able to corner with precision.

Only want the controls that are necessary – but like to customise.

Prefer one type of car for one job: a sports car or a saloon.

Men, women and beautiful wheels Are you having a deep relationship with your car? No? Well, have you named it? And how do you feel about other people touching it?

GENDER DIFFERENCES

Researchers have found that men are less comfortable discussing feelings about people than women, but when it comes to describing feelings about cars, men are more comfortable than women. Psychologists believe this is because men are less conscious of their own bodies than women, which makes their sense of “self” more easily disengaged from their bodies, and projected on to objects. This identification with objects may explain why men often describe their car as an extension of themselves, and why they get angry when others touch their cars. It may also explain why women (who see cars as separate entities) are more likely to give cars names.

WHAT OUR HANDS REVEAL

About 60 per cent of drivers drive with one hand on the wheel. For most men, the other hand was resting on the gear stick. For women, it was more often held in the lap. According to the driving researcher Professor Andrew Blake, driving with one hand is an indication of mastery of the car, that you see it as an extension of yourself.

SEATING ARRANGEMENTS

The researchers found that generally men assume they will sit in the driving seat, unless things are arranged otherwise. Family members always tend to take the same seats. Families spoke of a sense of “strangeness” if a parent sat in the back.

“I think the fact that Mum and Dad always have their backs to the kids gives the children a psychological advantage: more potential for unseen misbehaviour,” said one dad.

does it suck?

I surfed into an interesting site this afternoon... Ran a couple searches.

Here is what Sucks and what Rocks?

Companies are from MARS, Customers are from VENUS

Innovation: Companies are from MARS, Customers are from VENUS - Interesting article from FastCompany Now.

A few nuggets from the post:

• Companies continue to spend so much money on signing up new customers and pay little to no attention to acquired customers?
• Existing customers want long term relationships and attention, yet companies insist on focusing their efforts in finding new customers.
• The approach, if you look at it this way, is quite different. A company seeks to be linear and left-brained, even when it talks about relationships. Think about customer relationship management (CRM). When was the last time you tried to manage your relationships at home that way? Did it work?
• A customer wants to feel appreciated and loved. Not so much as in “we appreciate your business”, or “how may I help you?” -- both of which sound quite empty when not followed up by relevant action. We want to feel the service.

What Is It Worth to Understand Culture?

Yesterday's Tom Peters! Times had a very interesting article by Darci Riesenhuber the Transformation Architect - What Is It Worth to Understand Culture?

A couple nuggets from the article:

• What is culture? Simply, it is the culmination of shared values, assumptions, and beliefs tacitly and/or explicitly expressed within an organization.
• Why is it important to understand? Because, it determines how people behave and how work gets done. Let's consider how values and beliefs drive behavior using a consumer analogy: I need milk. The convenience store is closer than the grocery store (I value my time), but it is more expensive (I'm frugal). The grocery store offers more options (I value choice). I decide choice and price are more important than convenience, so I drive to the grocery store. While there, I evaluate my options: Whole milk is tasty, but I am weight conscious so I eliminate that option. While I am frugal, I am also health conscious. Although soy milk is more expensive it has additional perceived health benefits, so I choose soy. While, at some point, these decisions were conscious, as long as all factors remain the same and the reward for my behavior is greater than the cost, I continue to behave consistently and, eventually, subconsciously. What happens when my grocery store discontinues soy milk, the price goes up, or traffic becomes unbearable? Suddenly, I am forced to re-evaluate my behaviors to stay consistent with my values in order to achieve the outcome I find desirable.
• How does it relate to strategy and affect business outcomes? Recognize that the same values driving individuals' buying behaviors also drive their behaviors at work. We should ask ourselves, then, "Why don't we spend as much time analyzing the values of our talent pool to predict on-the-job performance and satisfaction as marketers do the values and emotional drivers of their target market to determine buying behaviors and loyalty?" Employees will behave in accordance with their values, regardless of your business strategy.
• high growth business strategy creates an unstable environment that requires individuals to take risks, an individual valuing stability, security and consistency will feel anxious and begin to seek ways to remedy their discomfort.
  
• In some cases, they are able to adapt and learn the behaviors necessary to succeed. In others, the personal transformation is simply not possible and they fail. The best way to avoid this is to determine "fit" during the selection process.
  
• Strategy changes throughout the life of your business, so must your culture. Changing your culture is not impossible, as many would believe. You just have to carefully evaluate and adjust the factors that influence culture, such as your systems (reward, IT), structure (reporting, physical), policies, HR practices (selection, training), communication, leadership-style, etc.
  

Another dimension to interactive marketing...

Marketing is all about consumer education, communication the value proposition when she is most receptive and differentiating within the competitive landscape. Study Places Value On Marketing At Consumer Research Stage - MediaPost article.

Couple nuggets...

• CONSUMERS SPEND 10% MORE FOR televisions and digital cameras they buy in stores when they research these purchases online first using a search engine.
• the brand experience begins well before the shopper walks into the store
• The Internet was the top resource for researching digital cameras and televisions, with 75% of those who researched a purchase beforehand going online to do so. The leading online resources were retail Web sites (73%), manufacturer Web sites (68%), and search engines (49%); 55% of the people walk into the stores with specific brands in mind; 80% of these consumers who do product research before hitting the store end up buying one of the brands they were originally considering; remaining 20% said in-store salespeople were highly influential; 75% didn't know the model they wanted when they got to the store
• Purchasers who used search engines spent on average $31 more on digital cameras and $139 more on TVs. This group used twice as many research sources (5.7 sources) as non-searchers (2.5 sources)