On worry and inaction: The sequel

In this case, the sequel is far better than the original: Leo Babuta, of Zen Habits coincidentally posted this today: The Little Rules Of Action. Anyone who has ever worked for or with me will recognize #3. ("Progress over perfection, there's always version 2.")

On worry and inaction

Jeremy Kloubec, a former colleague of mine now with consulting organization Infosys, writes recently about the dire unrealized predictions facing the VC community just a year ago. He details the shifts in the industry and partially credits the architects of the still-nascent recovery programs.

His comments reminded me of something my mother often said: "95% of things you worry about never come to pass."

Of course, its that 5% that keep us up at night.

As it pertains to our business life, if, as Peter Drucker is credited with stating, "the best way to predict the future is to create it", then 100% of our angst can be squeezed to 5% insignificance by the simple act of doing. Dire warnings and worry generally come with the same highly unlikely assumption: "If things do not change, ..." That peculiar assumption ignores the fact that humans - particularly capitalist humans - are not given to inaction. Even our base 'fight or flight' instinct indicates an action of one type or another. Change is inevitable.

And so it is with this crisis. We're not out of it, not by a long shot, and our myriad collective and individual actions will differ in effectiveness and certainly create new crises even as they create new solutions. But our reactions to events and the actions we take are all we've got and will continue to alter the linear path.

If history is any guide, that's more than enough.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Drucker at 100: What Will You Do Differently on Monday? (blogs.harvardbusiness.org)

All Work and No Play

Image via Wikipedia

Tonight, someone owes me an email and isn't delivering. And I don't really mind, because as you can tell by the dates of these posts, its been a month since I had the time to muse over a post so I'll enjoy the rare time. I've been working awfully hard lately, on an interesting but demanding project. I guess it doesn't help that I'm also battling some sort of weird respitory thing and fighting insomnia.

My candle burneth on both ends.

So that brings me to offer this public service announcement for those of you who are weary of the world of work. Yes, I know that we are glad to have a job and feel it unsympathetic to those who wish they had a job to complain about, but as a Forbes ad asked years ago: "Which is worse, to be laid off on Friday or to pick up the slack on Monday?" There's not much to be said about either.

Take a moment and review these websites... and remember to frown into the screen as you peruse these helpful sites. No, not because you'll be frustrated or angry, quite the opposite. Frown so others think you are researching something critical. Because, after all, you will be.

http://my-bad-habits.blogspot.com/ Ian Newby-Clark is a professor of psychology who studies our habits and offers interesting insights as to why we do what we do and why we don't really need to.

http://www.revrun.com/ Philospohy and wisdom from an innovator in the hip-hop movement. (Why do you look so surprised? Because Run has something to say or because I know who he is?)

http://lifehacker.com/ Simplicity for the geek in all of us.

http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/ Author Tim Ferriss is a divisive character, but he's always good for a little wisdom or interesting story here and there.

http://zenhabits.net/ Leo Babauta says it best on his site: "Zen Habits is about finding simplicity in the daily chaos of our lives."

Do you have other insights or websites on self-improvement, life balance, or simplicity? I'd love to hear about them!

Do The Math

A common though underutilized truism in marketing is to quantify your claims whenever and wherever possible.

'Biggest', 'Better', Fastest', 'Smallest', 'Cheapest' are nice claims but of little* value. Only slightly better are percentages, useful in any circumstance when the real numbers are small to begin with ($0.04 is a penny less than $0.05, but it is also fully 20% less)

I was reminded of this point by a number** of excellent recent blog entries that are worth a read:

How to Make Your Data Matter, Fast Company, by Dan and Chip Heath - Notable insight: "...an $800 billion stimulus works out to be the rough equivalent of seven weeks' income for an American household. Is that worth it? Seven weeks' worth of work to stave off a potential depression. Or maybe you're appalled. Regardless, we can finally have a real argument, because we have a better idea of what we're arguing about."

How Comedians Clarify Brain-fuzzing Stats, again, Fast Company, by Dan Macsai - Notable Insight: "...If Rod Blagojevich winds up in jail, four of the last eight Illinois governors will have served time. Did you know -- and this is true -- that only 48% of the people who commit murder end up in jail? You are more likely to end up in jail if you become the governor of Illinois than if you become a murderer. Make the smart choice, kids. (Jon Stewart)"

What Does A Trillion Dollars Look Like?, courtesy of cnbc.com - Notable insight: "With the largest market cap among U.S. companies, Exxon Mobil’s value of publicly traded shares is over $345 billion (as of 3/31/09). If this amount was denominated in $100 bills, the block of Benjamins covering the area of a standard American football field would stack to a height of about 28.7 feet."

Ultimately if your numbers are impressive or modest, whole numbers or percentages, what matters is that your audience understands them and relates to them in clear terms that mean something to them.

(*specifically, 86% less value, that is.)
(** exactly three)

Thank you, Captain Obvious

So I just got this email... sent by a company that sells 'dashboard' marketing management software - to me, a professional marketer.

Know your product (marketing software), know your audience (marketer). So far so good.

But the first line of copy?

"Remember when marketers with the biggest budget usually got the biggest customer base? Those days are gone. Forever."

Well, first, I never recommend writing copy that opens with a rhetorical question. Because it might not be rhetorical to your target customer, and once they answer no, you've lost them. And in this case, I answer 'no'. As in, "No, I don't remember when marketers with the biggest budget usually got the biggest customer base. And neither does anyone who started practicing advertising and marketing at any point following the Johnson administration."

Second, um, huh? This is compelling copy? Do they think I - or any marketer who has reached a point in their career where they are a decisionmaker - or even an influencer regarding such software - was actually sitting at their desk, thinking, "Geez, if only I could spend more on a wildly chaotic, unstructured campaign that lacks any sense of accountability, like the guys on Mad Men"?

"What despair. I guess we'll just be second rate until I can get more money from the CFO."

Not so much.

Here's what's wrong with marketing today: Even a marketing-centric company can't piece together decent marketing copy, relying instead on empty platitudes, because they don't understand that their target audience is far more sophisticated than they give them (us) credit for.

What might be worse: Perhaps marketers still aren't all that sophisticated, and this company's copy is more on-target than even I want to admit.

Fear and the American Consumer

In a recent article in his newsletter Drum Beat News, my colleague Jack Howe writes of the death of 'conspicuous consumption':

"Luxury buying is off in a major way - reports from Neiman's, Saks, and all top brand name retails report the same cut back from their consumers. So the company that must survive is making sure they offer solid business cases with every offer. Understanding the consequence of how the CEO, at the business your selling to, gets paid can pay off for you, the seller. As consumers, we are still spending, just not in the ways we were before. It is highly unlikely, given the cost of bailing us out of our current economic situation, that we will in our life time, see a return to what we knew as conspicuous consumption."

Interesting also is his observation in the same article that the increasing homogeneity of automobile design also points to the idea that 'standing out' is 'out'.

Whether or not I agree that recent poor auto design is a sign of a larger cultural shift, the apparent death of 'conspicuous consumption' is an interesting argument and worth evaluating from a marketing perspective. Given rising national and personal debt, a worldwide credit crisis, inflationary pressures on energy and food stuffs, plus the impact of environmental awareness and regulation, comfort with high levels of consumption no longer looks - or feels- 'right'. There are even anecdotal stories of monied customers foregoing store-branded shopping bags in order to keep a lower profile on their ill-timed retail therapy.

For years many marketers have relied primarily on brand prestige (associating personal attributes onto or from a product) and constancy (that is, 'I know what I'm getting', aka 'no one ever got fired for buying IBM') to maintain market share and margins. With the new normal of a slower consumer engine on the economy, we must re-evaluate what motivates customers now. I see these four are among the leading motivators:

Value: The rise of the big box discount chains, while suspect themselves in this era of the 'new normal', provide insight into consumers desire to buy in bulk, reduce packaging, and generally 'stock up' in what is perceived to be a very volatile period in our history.

Necessity: Discretionary spending is off, minimalism is in. Name your own example: Even here in truck-crazy Texas, Hummers are criticized, while the sparse Prius hybrid is envied. Vacations are out, staycations are in.

Savings: Once arguably in negative territory, personal savings in the United States has turned to a pace not seen in years, some estimates now as high as 4%. Anti-debt radio personality Dave Ramsey has a slogan that says it best: "...the paid off home mortgage has taken the place of the BMW as the status symbol of choice."

Fear: Arguably the previous three motivators are a result of fear to one degree or another. But this is a non-specific, generalized fear of a quickly shifting geo-political and economic landscape. Remember what happened to action movies after the Berlin Wall fell in 1989? Stallone had to find new enemies because the Ruskies were our pals. It was easy in an earlier era when Russians were the bad guys and we had a collective target for our enmity. But the new political environment, unnamed terrorists have exacted far more damage to our lives and psyches in the last decade than the Russians did in the prior fifty years.

Once, leveraging FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) was the last refuge of marketers unable to sell a product or solution on merits. Today, it seems to be the self-imposed primary motivation of consumers. And in a world where banks are bankrupt, car manufacturers are nationalized, real estate is no longer an inflation hedge, terrorists have us disrobing to get on an airplane, and the national debt clock needs more light bulbs, who could blame them?

Related articles by Zemanta

• 4 Problems That Could Sink America (usnews.com)

Social Media Resistance Fading Fast

My prediction: 99.97% Social Media saturation in the next 24-36 months.

Read more: STATS: Social Media Resistance Is Fading Fast

"Only 13% of companies surveyed have no plans for social media in the future."

A decade ago, that's what they said about getting a website.

Social Media, personified

If your favorite social media site were a person, who would they be? An artist? Engineer? Troublemaker?

In a fun post "Internet University Cast" by artist and DeviantArt contributor elontirien, social media sites are brought to life with personalities inspired by a short story.

A common question in the branding process has always been something along the lines of giving a brand a personality: "if your brand were a fictional character, who would it be?" Such an exercise allows us to identify personality traits and emotions that the brand is intended to produce.

And while I find the Google character a little uptight for my imagination, the others appear spot-on. I especially like the young Twitter character, that seems to underscore the fact that Twitter shares a narcissism and self-importance common of a 'tween'.

For another similar post regarding the Obama and McCain 'brands', click here.

What is your brand? An researcher like Jonas Salk? A granddad like your own? A revolutionary?

How much green is there in green?

In a recent price sensitivity analysis conducted by Rockbridge Research, it was discovered that most consumers would purchase a product indicated as 'green' (environmentally friendly) over a 'regular' product of the same type, but only if they were the same price. The study concluded that overall, "...as the green product’s price increases, consumers’ inclination towards it decreases."

Not surprisingly, specific audience categories offering unique attitudes toward the 'green movement' differ in the value they place on such products. Six distinct consumer groups within the overall adult consumer population were identified, with “Green Tech Leaders” willing to pay far more for a green certified product, while “Anti-Greens” are not willing to pay much more at all. That alone is interesting as it still indicates a willingness to perhaps consider the positive social implications of buying green even to those who do not value it themselves. This indicates that green product attributes are valuable, but not widespread enough to accommodate anything but a modest price adjustment.

From a share prospective, a green alternative may move the needle. From a margin perspective, this study indicates that their isn't yet much green in being green.

To learn more about Rockbridge’s Green Technology Segmentation, click here.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Nearly all "Eco" Product Claims Are Misleading [Greenwashing] (consumerist.com)

Nowhere to hide

So we found out this week that the Texas Rangers' Josh Hamilton fell off the wagon last January. And from the photos (note there is no link attached to that word, at least from this blog - I'll get to that in a moment) he landed hard. The married Hamilton, offered a second chance at baseball after falling into drugs while a young ballplayer convalescing an injury, was photographed drinking, carousing, and essentially behaving like a fratboy at his first kegger. Unfortunate, but not unexpected. Experts say relapses in recovery are common. Fortunately for Hamilton, he told his family and team the very next day so this story is old news now, some eight months later - at least to those who matter.

Olympic phenom Michael Phelps was photographed months ago taking a bong hit at a college party. (I blogged on the topic here.) He lost some major endorsements, apologized, and hopefully learned an important lesson. Whether that lesson is "Just Say No" or "make sure you can trust the people you party with" is unknown, but truth is, both are valid lessons.

I'm not linking to or reposting any of these related images, and I'm not going to comment with some false air of indignation about the behavior of these athletes. I actually tend to take the position of SNL comic Seth Meyer in this outstanding SNL rant. ("If you're at a party and you see Michael Phelps smoking a bong and your first thought isn't "Wow, I get to party with Michael Phelps" and instead you take a picture and sell it to a tabloid, you should take a long look in the mirror...") It isn't in my nature to build people up just for the thrill of tearing them down - as if accomplished, public people were nothing more wooden blocks stacked by some sugar-ravaged five year old. In my experience, most tend to punish themselves just fine on their own.

My marketing mind however pauses and recognizes that each of us, our companies, and our values are subject to the whims of small minded people and rabid opponents who are using the tools of the Internet and social media to gain even the most morally tenuous ground or simply force their way onto the 15 minute stage with a sensational bit of useless gossip. Therefore, it is critical that people and organizations not ignore these new communication tools, but engage them to monitor and proactively defend their brand - whether corporate, product, or personal. As social media consultant Shama Kabani stated in a recent presentation to CEO Netweavers, "...whether or not you want (photos and personal information) out there, its out there. The point is to build up a credible persona in person and online to counter any negative consequence."

Fortunately for Hamilton and Phelps, they've handled their scandals well, offering quick acknowledgment and heartfelt apologies. In the end, the best revenge is their stellar athletic performances since. In the few days since the Hamilton story became public, he's been hitting .360, and for his part, last week Phelps once again set a new world record, this time in the 100m fly. Sometimes the best response is continue to do what you do best.

Or in other words, in a world where all the hiding places are mic'd, let the world know that you are still trying to be the people our dogs think we are.

Shackin' up

Quick Quiz: When asked why RadioShack decided to rebrand itself "The Shack", CMO Lee Applbaum stated it was because (choose just one!):

1. We think "shack" conjures up many positive store images.

2. Some customers and the investor community refers to us as "The Shack" already.

3. We can't afford the real Shaq as a spokesperson, and he's in Cleveland now anyhow.

4. Basic research could have told us that "The Shack" is actually a popular Christian novel regarding the anguish of a parent over the rape and murder of his daughter. Oh, well.

5. Because... "The (Love) Shack is a little ol' place where we can get together! (Don't forget your jukebox money!)"


The answer is #2, although any of the answers is equally bad, and equally plausible.

That's right. RadioShack's most avid customers and "the investor community" (really? that's their target with this campaign?) already refer to the company (despairingly, perhaps?) as The Shack, so they figured they'd just co-op the term as their own in a desperate grab to leverage, and therefore destroy, any credible independent brand affinity.

Besides, marketing theory aside, every middle school kid in America already knows that giving yourself a nickname is just lame.

Noisy launches

Here's something startling obvious that often gets lost in the noise of an exciting product launch:

The product is the thing.

The company is not the thing. (An exception perhaps is Apple - which uses its powerful corporate brand to great effect.)

The distribution channel is not the thing. (Your distributors may incorrectly argue the point, especially VARs.)

And most certainly, the ad is not the thing. (Your agency's creatives may disagree, especially if the ads are spotlighted in an article like this one in Advertising Age.

Once you go down the path of suggesting that a "creepy" and "unsettling" advertisement is "doing its job" because people are talking about the advertisement (and not the product per se) you can quickly find yourself sliding down a slippery slope trying to quantify 'mindshare' and 'visibility'.

To be certain, if the ads are effective, they'll be talked about... but more importantly, so will the product. A truly effective advertisement quickly steps back and allows the product to take the spotlight.

After all, no one wants to hear the announcer keep talking once the band takes the stage.