Big Ben Learns A Lesson

Ben Roethlisberger, the youngest quarterback ever to win a Super Bowl was not wearing a helmet when he crashed into a car that was turning left in front of his motorcycle. But today Roethlisberger said in a statement that if he ever rides a motorcycle again “it certainly will be with a helmet.”

I would have laid odds that a young man like Roethlisberger would have gone the route of so many others, cursing luck through broken teeth while vowing to continue the behavior, defending what clearly was an error in judgement. So congratulations to Ben for doing what so few of today's business leaders seem to be able to do: Admit a mistake, take responsibility, and change direction. Such responsibility saves careers and saves companies.

In this particular case, it may save a life as well.

Good Effort

The boys run off the field after the last out and after allowing four more runs. "Good effort, guys!" shout the coaches.

That's the way you manage boys. Six, seven, eight year olds. Effort is important. Instilling the team effort, good sportsmanship, putting forth your best effort.

But when it comes to marketing efforts, a 'good effort' is never enough. It is too easy today to measure, refine and improve. Too often, 'a good effort' is all that expected of marketing. And far too often, that is all marketing professionals expect of themselves.

No more 'visibility', no more 'mindshare', no more intangible measurements that only serve to give credence to management biases against marketing. Measure marketing performance with home-grown or commercially available marketing dashboard software. Then you can build the credibility that is required for marketing to get a seat in the boardroom and leave the 'keychain and brochure people' characterization long behind.

Related articles

• How CMOs Can Measure Return on Ad Spend with Better Modeling and Conversion Attribution
• Five Questions Every CEO Should ask Marketing
• Why You Need Marketing Analytics, Not Web Analytics

Analysis Paralysis

Inasmuch as I just defended 'process' in my earlier post, at the urging of a reader email (use the 'comment' button, folks, email is so 2002!) I thought I ought to also clarify that the bane of my existence is 'analysis paralysis'.

Analysis paralysis differs from effective process in that my concept of the latter adds value by directing and supporting common efforts in an organization. Analysis paralysis is the polar opposite of this; it represents unnecessary expense as real and opportunity costs are incurred for repetitive, redundant analysis continually applied to a problem (or its proposed solution) without adding any additional relevant data. This can be intentional (as is found in politics as committees are formed for 'further study' in order to shelve controversial issues) or unintentional (lack of confidence in one's ability to reach a decision).

Here's excellent reading on a related subject: Blink by Malcolm Gladwell

Process is not a four letter word.

In the popular cult favorite, The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy by the late Douglas Adams, Vogons are creatures described as "extremely ugly, extremely officious, and generally not much fun to be around... only their stubbornness allowed them to survive. They generally become bureaucrats in the galactic government and their unpleasant demeanour makes them ideally suited to such employment".

Now there's an unappealing profile that you won't find in any Myers-Briggs personality profile, however this caricature rings true due to our generally accepted opposition to useless red tape.

I'll admit that as much as I oppose useless red tape, I am a fan of process. But only those processes that are designed to expedite, measure, and improve actions, not slow and needlessly monitor and approve actions. Too often extremes are found in corporate America - either too many controls, or in order to avoid such lumbering processes, too few. The former processes result in disengaged employees and an organization unable to change quickly; the latter, an organization lacking common understanding and duplicating or negating efforts of others.

Processes are not poison. They simply need to be developed and followed in a way that keeps the end goal in mind, be it customer satisfaction, margin support, or new product development. Processes are meant to free people to do their jobs make decisions and act quickly, not constrain their ability to contribute.

Of plaster and planning

So my bride and I finally decided to start a major remodel last week; the master bath is being turned upside down, with virtually everything new except the ceiling, and even that was repainted.

But it was going to be quick and easy, this remodel, because we researched, we shopped, we planned. We knew precisely what we were going to do.

Of course, we thought there may be a delay in getting the tile, an unexpected foundation problem around the tub, or a mismatched color between the countertops and cabinets. Or something.

We foresaw the unforseeable, and that's not an oxymoron.

Just because you can't see trouble ahead doesn't mean it won't come. Its not enough to have a Plan B or Plan C. Alternate plans only allow for a complete re-boot, and today's competitive environment doesn't allow the time or cost in starting over. It requires that you be able to plan well enough that the best plan is a flexible one. One plan, not alternative ones.

So now we have different tile than we first spec'd, we are painting the existing cabinets, and the closet doors are different than we first envisioned. It's over-budget and a week delayed according to the promises initially offered by the contractor. But its under-budget and currently ahead of schedule from what we had expected, and its still going to be exactly what we wanted.

Now that's a plan.

The check is in the mail...

Here's an oldie but a goodie from the Fast Company archives. The Five Most Common Lies In Business reveals nothing that we didn't already suspect, and for those who have told them, nothing they didn't already know. I'll add another:

Lie #6: "We are investing more into marketing."

Truth: "We hope to have more left over for marketing when we finish our other planning."

B.S. Detector: Until marketing is involved at the outset of planning, consulting on promotional spending and market messages, product launches and the like, sales cannot plan their quotas with any certainty.

I know of a firm where the Sales VP, frustrated at the CFO's apparently arbitrary reverse budgeting and quota-setting (working from a target EPS backward) simply threw up his hands and said, "Make the quota whatever you want it to be. There's no way we can make it with the current product mix, and I have no idea what you are going to give to marketing to support us, but go ahead." This exasperated outburst was mistaken for agreement, and the unrealistic quotas were set, and no doubt marketing blamed when they were not met.

Rule #3: Have sex.

"The speaker wore his usual uniform of a faded black Timberland sweatshirt and jeans; his London audience was all tailored suits and double-cuffed shirts. But as James Montier finished explaining why money shouldn't be equated with happiness, the equity and bond traders rose to their feet in applause. "I don't think they heard much beyond rule 3," Montier quipped afterward. Rule 3 of his 10 for achieving sustainable happiness is, 'Have sex.'"

An article in this month's Fast Company details maverick financial analyst James Montier's rules for investing. I liked these so much I'm listing several here with my corollaries regarding how they address transformational marketing and change management as well.

1. Leaving the trees could have been our first mistake. Our minds are suited to solving problems related to our survival rather than being optimized for investment decisions. My corollary: Buying decisions - even those regarding matching specifications to features as in fulfilling design specs - are made in the self-interest, not the objective fact. Market to the emotion, not the intellect.

2. Why does meeting companies hold such an important place in the investment process of many fund managers? Because we need to fill our time with something that makes us look busy. My corollary: As with investment decisions, many buying decisions are made before we ever review, or complete reviewing, the sponsor's 'factual' message. The access to information is so pervasive today, it must be consistently presented across all communication outlets from mass media to watercooler conversations.

3. Our minds are not supercomputers and not even good filing cabinets. They bear more resemblance to Post-it Notes that have been thrown into a bin and covered in coffee. The ease with which we can recall information is likely to be influenced by the impact that information made when it went in. My corollary: Brevity is good.

4. Don't equate happiness with money. Materialistic pursuits are not a path to sustainable happiness. My corollary: In life as in business, make the process the pursuit. Because until you are 'there', you'll never be satisfied, and if you do get 'there', you've often nowhere to go but back again.

5. People adapt to income shifts relatively quickly; the long-lasting benefits are essentially zero... One of my recommendations is to stop, take note, and give thanks--not necessarily to God but just to reflect on what you've achieved and what you've got. You need to stop and think, "Actually, I'm damn fortunate." My collorary: Really, I can't top that one. (Damn, I'm fortunate.)

Big Search v Big Brand

According to a Harvest Digital study highlighted in a recent article in IT Week, a brand's influence on directing internet traffic pales in comparison to the influence of search engines. 43% of users are likely to click on links simply because they are on the first page of results, now culled not from one or two words but from three or four word search terms. The same UK study indicated a coming fracture in Google's dominance of search. As marketers, the time has passed when we could manage SEO activities with static metatags and homespun tracking tools. Search Engine Optimization is very much front and center of the marketing mix.

Recommended Reading

I just finished reading Bossidy and Charan's latest, Confronting Reality.

Like their last book, Execution, I found the content to be straightforward, intuitive for most. Yet perhaps the authors were told after the success of Execution that leadership was still more about PowerPoint and politics than actual execution - after all, if you don't know where to start you tend to be hamstrung. The message is to start with (get this) a business plan; one consisting of a hard look at internal, external and financial realities. Using many case studies from Allied Signal to Home Depot, the authors illustatrate how an unbiased view of these forces can shape a workable strategy and a thriving - I would say surthriving - organization. The book gets a bit repetitive but perhaps if I confront my own reality - that today's leadership requires this sort of basic business refresher - then it will have an impact on the leaders for whom it is directed who will take the time to read it.

"Some Exec Must've Read An Article..."

A recent article in the New York Times revealed the all too predictable and (if you aren't a GM exec) humorous outcome of a Chevrolet Tahoe viral marketing campaign that allowed consumers to write their own advertisements:

"At first glance, the video looks like a typical 30-second car commercial: a shiny sport utility vehicle careers down a country road lined with sunflower fields, jaunty music playing in the background. Then, white lettering appears on the screen: "$70 to fill up the tank, which will last less than 400 miles. Chevy Tahoe."

The commercial is the product of one of the advertising industry's latest trends: user-generated advertising. On March 13, Chevrolet introduced a Web site allowing visitors to take existing video clips and music, insert their own words and create a customized 30-second commercial for the 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe."

'Shockingly', we find that pranksters and environmental activists are the most likely users of this viral marketing campaign. It sounds suspiciously like a virus alright. Where I've worked, it is usually transmitted to executives on transcontinental or international flights, who, having been bumped to coach and low on laptop power, have no choice but to catch up on their reading. The result is a widespread contagion - a distribution of a photocopied article and a new directive to employ an emerging media, approach, or program without regard as to whether it is appropriate to the marketplace.

From the article, emphasis mine: "Drew Neisser, the president and chief executive at Renegade Marketing, a New Yor (sic) agency specializing in nontraditional marketing that is part of Dentsu, said companies had such a strong desire for user-generated advertising that they were willing to accept the risks. 'There's this gold rush fever about consumer-generated content,' he said. 'Everybody wants to have consumer-generated content, and Chevy Tahoe doesn't want to be left behind.' A spokeswoman for Chevrolet, Melisa Tezanos, said the company did not plan to shut down the anti-S.U.V. ads. 'We anticipated that there would be critical submissions,' Ms. Tezanos said. 'You do turn over your brand to the public, and we knew that we were going to get some bad with the good. But it's part of playing in this space.'"

Ms. Tezanos, one does not 'turn over' a brand to the consuming public. The brand was never yours to give. It is always your public's brand. However, what you do not do is pay for and provide a platform for your brand's critics.

To play Advertising Agency Creative Director yourself, here's the link: http://chevyapprentice.com/

For Every Action There Is An Equal and... Identical Action?

I’ve been in more situations than I can count where a company does far too little in the way of proactive marketing and far too much reactive marketing. The difference between the two is fundamental.

Proactive marketing is marketing where the outgoing message is controlled by your own company. “But aren’t all outgoing marketing messages controlled by the company?” you might ask.

No.

Unfortunately in most business-to-business environments, marketing strategies and their inter-related advertising messages are actually driven by their competition, making for reactive marketing, which necessarily guarantees a marketing message that is both late to market and no longer relevant to the conversation.

I once had a software client who, upon looking at a creative presentation that involved bees and a beehive, commented that her competitors were sure to joke that the product had ‘bugs’. She was more concerned about possible sarcastic comments from competitors than articulating a clear message in her ads – as if the campaign – even a ‘killer campaign’ – would stop competitors from saying things that were, well, competitive. In Marcom, this is also seen in the rationale to participate in industry events, where companies continue to invest money with declining returns just to ‘be present’, or ‘support the industry’. Often this is further complicated by ever-increasing investments in clever and complex booth themes, as if the Griswolds from the movie Christmas Vacation were event planners.

Yet while marcom is most obvious, sometimes the reactive approach encroaches in ways far less obvious. Strategically, it happens when companies look at a competitor’s recent success in product, promotion, or distribution and attempt to copy it outright, opting for guaranteed also-ran status instead of taking chances to find niche differentiation.

The reactive element is often even more insidious than marcom or strategy. Often it is organizational. Many companies do little to discourage employees from entering into a habit of self-effacing navel-gazing, lamenting their opinion that the company is the least among competitors; and yet, whenever a hire is made from another company, it is surprisingly discovered that the other firm deals with the same issues. Proper leadership stems the natural tendency toward corporate self-flagellation and encourages morale and confidence – in employees, customers, and investors.

Competitive actions are part of the environment in which your marketing must operate, not the sole driver for its strategic direction. Other considerations, including, importantly, customer needs, are the real drivers. Anticipating these needs, then marketing to them proactively and confidently will always make you the lead dog. And as the bumper sticker slogan says, “If you aren’t the lead dog, the view never changes.”

That Man Behind The Curtain

So a former colleague tells me this afternoon that the company he works for has just sold an expensive software application, a breakthrough that has been anticipated for months. Trouble is, it is expected to consume all the division's development resources for six months (in spite of claims to the contrary, this product is merely 'slideware', that is, product existing only on PowerPoint slides), and is only the first in what is supposed to be, according to revenue projections, ten such sales over the year. The development is not 'build once, deploy multiple times'. It is largely custom.

So how does a company manage to project annual sales five times greater than their production capacity?

An enormous oversight? Is someone having a 'palm to forehead' moment? Not likely. This was anticipated, in a sense. This company, and many others like it, operate under two major, driving assumptions: One, a defeatest attitude that what they are selling will not be bought but will 'position it' for sales of lesser, more deliverable solutions; and two, that impossible tasks are made possible by sheer force of will.

Of the former, any company trying to market itself on the back of slideware that, if successfully sold, would cripple the company's ability to function efficiently, is self-defeating at best and fraudulent (to investors, customers, employees) at worst. The first rule of sales is to believe in yourself and your product. Continued failure to deliver on promises and sufficiently resource projects will undermine customer, investor and employee confidence. It is a consciously engaged strategy designed to hide unpleasant truths for short-term gains.

Of the latter, this only happens in movies. Excepting perhaps for heroic feats in the early years of the space program, impossible tasks are just that - and expectations of rabbits from hats reveal what is essentially an utter lack of planning and no real understanding on the part of management of the broader organization's inter-related functions, a fundamental disconnect from the laws of physics. Too many companies survive (barely) only because of the efforts of a narrow top percentile of employees that are burdened because they are averse to allowing failure - theirs or others. This leads to stress and burnout among the most dedicated and talented, as their efforts become not recognized, but expected; their eventual financial rewards not exceptional but typical.

Vision, mission, strategic planning is designed to avoid all this; honest concession, compromise, discussion and above all, leadership, drive sales and development plans that work as a cohesive unit, breaking barriers and driving growth. This is a company instead driven for short-term result, employing sycophantic ramblings to investors and employees, and an avoidance of the hard decisions that come with leadership. This is a picture of a company on the decline.