Yesterday I had the pleasure of spending the day listening to different bands by the lake in Ouchy, Switzerland. One of the performers was a talented guitarist and singer from Ireland who put on a great show.
There was one problem though, the Irishman kept telling stories to his audience between the songs – some of them interesting, some of them funny, and some of them sad, but at no point did the audience react.
It reminded me of many brands in their attempt to communicate with their audience. It’s easy to draw a parallel between a brand’s mistakes in communicating, and our artists attempt to entertain his audience
So what can brands learn from a talking Irishman?
The audience is not yours. Assuming your audience is, well yours and that they are dying to hear what you have to say is a common mistake. Like the customers of most brands, people attending the concert were not there specifically to see the Irishman. They were there to have a nice time and enjoy a day of music. What does that mean? It means that the stories he was telling were of no relevance to the audience, they had never heard of the people he were referring to, or the musicians he was honouring. As a brand, it is rare people turn up for you, recognising that should fundamentally change how, and what you choose to communicate, or do for that matter.
Different context requires different communication. The Irishman probably has a very strong following in some parts of the world, like many brands do, people that come to a concert to see him specifically. Among your fans (loyal customers) you can tell your tails all day long – to them it’s music to their ears (no pun intended). But outside of that environment you have to adapt, read the situation correctly. A discussion forum, for example, is not your environment, and can’t be treated in the same way as your website or your packaging (although I would argue the latter aren’t your environments either).
Your language is not their language. The Irishman failed to notice that hardly anyone in the audience spoke English. I don’t know about you but I don’t speak ‘brand’, yet brands keep speaking their language to me, which I cover in some detail this post about the language used by brands in advertising. Here is an example I site in the blog from a PC World ad voice over, ‘Plus they had 200 pounds of this 47 inch LG 200 hertz 10 ETP TV and it was only 699 pounds’. What? I’m sure that no one but product managers speaks that language!
Listen to feedback. One would think that after a few stories, and a silent audience, our Irishman would understand the potential language barrier and change tactics, but no. The penny didn’t even drop when he kept asking people in the audience questions, and no one answered. How many times have you seen brands keep talking to an audience even when you don’t react, or even listen…how many times have you seen brands asking audiences to do something, and nothing happens, how many times have you seen brands commission consumer research to subsequently do absolutely nothing with the consumer feedback?!
Leave the ego at home. I suspect the Irishman not changing his behaviour had a lot to do with the fact that he was talking mostly to please himself – or his ego. And I’m sure all of us have met one…or two… or… Marketing Directors producing communications (especially those in the shape of 30 seconds) that have one main purpose, make the Marketing Director feel good about himself.
I could go on but I think you get the point!
But on a positive note, at least the Irishman had one thing going for him that many brands don’t – a hell of a product (voice) and a hell of a setting to sell it in (below view). Beats Tesco, no?
Nothing warms my heart more than when an organisation does something good, nothing warms my heart more than when media and advertising is used to do good, and nothing warms my heart more than when technology helps to do good.
Today I saw an amazing campaign that reminded me of something that happened a few years ago when I was in San Francisco with my mother. We were taking a stroll when we walked passed a homeless man sitting on the pavement with his dog. I remember having seen a programme about homeless people where they mentioned that the hardest bit was not the cold, not the hunger, not having nowhere to be…the hardest bit is people seeing right through you…as if being homeless all of a sudden makes you invisible.
I therefore looked at the man and said ‘Good afternoon’… as we walked away I heard him say to his dog ‘Did you hear that, she said good afternoon’. He was no longer invisible.
Remembering that moment still brings tears to my eyes.
But seeing this campaign aimed at helping the homeless gives me hope… Please do take a look.
As described by digital buzz ‘The above is an extraordinary campaign from Pathways To Housing & Sarkissian Mason depicting a “virtual” homeless man projected onto a wall in NYC. The campaign to raise awareness hope to create interaction with someone most people just pass by, in prompting the public to interact with the virtual homeless man by SMSing a number that opens a door. Passers by are then given the opportunity to send another SMS to make a small donation instantly from their phone’.
I was so inspired by this that I will occasionally use this forum to bring to your attention examples of when technology makes a real difference in the non-commercial world.
In the meantime I sincerely hope that Pathways To Housing & Sarkissian Mason manages to raise awareness of the chronically homeless, and of course also that they manage to raise the funds necessary to help them in their quest to find a solution to any human being living on the street.
I’ve just spent four days without Internet, and with hardly any mobile connection. Yes you read right, four days. And no, it was not due to a BT strike, and no I’m not describing a scene from a horror movie, nor is it a joke.
It’s simply life in a village in Tuscany.
People working in marketing and communications know that they’re not a representation of the majority of people they look to sell products to. Most of us are very well aware of the fact that we live in a tiny bubble called ‘media and advertising…in London’. Yet I wonder sometimes if we really do know, really do understand, as on a deep level, how a big chunk of the world lives?
I have the pleasure of working with Steve Gladdis at MediaCom (a fabulous person and also happens to be the best dressed man at the agency). A few years ago Steve came up with the idea of method planning. The concept is simple, if method acting refers to a series of techniques by which actors try to create in themselves the thoughts and emotions of their characters in an effort to develop lifelike performance. Method planning does the same thing, but with the output being a great media plan (of which Steve, may I add, is responsible for many).
(The lovely Steve Gladdis)
Well, I have just had a dose of ‘method living’!
Last week I arrived in Italy for the wedding of one of my oldest friends. It was in an amazing village situated in the rolling hills of Tuscany (3 hours drive from Pisa) surrounded by vineyards.
I had been in the hotel 2 minutes when I asked about wifi (of which there was none) and 5 minutes when I realised that not only did they not have international TV channels, but the ones they had were rendered useless by static. Thank God for my iPhone…but nope…no connection!
The next day my friend and I were sent on a mission to find candles. As we walked around in search of candles I realised that a hardware store and a fruit shop was the only retail experience the village had to offer. We proceeded to ask the locals, only to be greeted with the same apologetic phrase from everyone we asked, “Ahhh no we don’t have things like large candles here” (only in Italian of course – not an English word between the inhabitants of the stone village).
Have I just arrived in marketer’s hell I asked myself? No channels to advertise on (digital does not exist, and TV is impossible to see), and no shops to sell anything to anyone in? But more importantly no people who seem to care about the fact that they are living in a marcomms free zone!
I have to be honest, I spent the first 24 hours confused wondering what do people in a place like this do? How do they manage without the bare necessities?
And then I decided to get over myself and do a bit of method living. And I can tell you ‘they manage’ very well.
I joined them in cafes and I talked, I watched them make amazing wine, I looked at some of the most stunning views, I tasted the previously mentioned wine, I watched them hang and laugh, I basically saw them living life. I also saw their Yves Saint Laurent bags, and their designer glasses so they are also clearly able to shop. They are just not connected 24/7!
As I traveled home I started thinking… How to be relevant to these people? How to engage with them? And more importantly how to connect with them? And when I say them, I don’t mean just my new Italian friends, but anyone, anywhere with other things to do (I stopped myself from saying better things to do ) than staring at screens of different sizes.
Just to follow on the theme of method living…I think the best thing for me is to pour myself a glass of wine from the lovely bottle I brought back, in the hope that living it some more will give me an answer to my questions!!!
I’ve been asked to speak at a panel at EGR Live (eGaming Review brand) covering the topic ‘Marketing on a shoestring budget’. My role on this panel is as ‘someone who knows about social media’… and it got me thinking.
Everyone loves seeing an underdog make it. And in marketing land an underdog is someone with little or no budget. So when Paranormal Activity, a movie with a production budget of $10,000 and no marketing budget, makes it into American theatres through an active approach to social media, we pay attention, we pay attention and we want some of that magic too!!!
I love stories like this, but I fear that it gives people the wrong impression of the role that digital and social media should play in marketing.
Marketing does not = advertising, we must therefore look at marketing from a broader perspective
The main reaction marketers have when they think of marketing on a shoestring budget is free advertising, and the solution to this is social media and SEO.
This is a limited view of marketing. If, as a marketer, you truly want to decrease marketing cost you MUST look at marketing from a broader perspective. If, as a marketer, you truly want to be part of the social media tidal wave you MUST look at the role digital and social media can, and should play, in the entire marketing mix.
Some companies are getting this right, and ‘qu’elle surprise’, they are also the same companies we keep reading about in the trade press and hearing about at conferences. The reason they’re such success stories is because they do NOT look at social media as a way of decreasing advertising budget, they look at social media (and with this I mean the power of people) as something that can affect their entire marketing mix. Let me give you some examples, and I know you will be familiar with these.
Product development: LEGO with its software ‘Design By Me’ allowing people to design their very own custom made LEGO sets
Price: Open Source Foundation with its promise of being better quality, higher reliability, more flexible at a lower cost
Distribution: Kogi BBQ has several trucks serving Korean food in LA and uses twitter to tell its customers where they can find their van’s each day
Promotion: (the aforementioned) Paranormal Activity
And finally Zappos, a company who gets it right throughout the value chain, has during the past 10 years grown from almost no sales to more than $1 billion in annual gross merchandise sales. This has been achieved primarily by repeat customers and word of mouth.
These are all examples of excellent marketing, and in some cases of advertising on a shoestring budget!
Create an army of fanatics
There is another thing these companies have in common; they have what Jonathan MacDonald, my business partner at this fluid world, refers to as an army of fanatics supporting them. An army of fanatics are people that produce and create for you, talk about you, promote you, sell your products, and in tough times defend you!
Shift marketing investment to earlier stages of the value chain
When we at this fluid world work with organisations that are looking at decreasing their marketing budget (often through social media), we recommend that they shift their investment to an earlier stage of the value chain, in addition to focusing their attention on creating an army of fanatics, rather than on how to advertise as cheaply as possible. Why? Because we know that this will save organisations money across the board.
We recommend:
They tap into the zeitgeist “the spirit of the times”, soak themselves in the cultural and spiritual climate, live breathe and eat what people do, think and talk about
That they create extreme value, be it in utility, convenience, enablement, connectivity, coolness or reward; within and around everything they do. This can only be achieved if stage one is taken seriously, and done well
After having created something extremely valuable make sure it’s ultra findable. The distance between inspiration and satisfaction must be reduced toward instantaneous. Be everywhere! Yes this is where search comes in – but only as a part of it
And finally make sure it’s super shareable. It seems such an easy concept but the efficiencies of distribution become significant when people who like something can share it with others. The ‘viral’ campaigns we see working best are those that have an instant way of sharing between people. This accelerates the advocacy effect of armies of fanatics
Gaming is all about armies of fanatics
As you can imagine, creating an army of fanatics is easier said than done, especially if you’re in the business of selling sugar water or you are, for example, an energy company…
But if you’re reading this and you’re in gaming, than you’re incredibly lucky because you’re in an industry that by nature is made up of fanatics! People who game love gaming, people who game breathe gaming! You already have the army of fanatics to tap into by default. They are there, waiting to connect waiting to play (literally!).
So what does that mean to you? It means that your job is to make them YOUR army of fanatics!
Look at Zynga, the makers of FarmVille, and FishVille, with 230 million users each month (using a limited advertising budget) and Mafia Wars with its 12,104,521 facebook fans (as of 2nd of June 2010). These are games that have created and tapped into fanatical armies at great success!
This, by the way, requires following the same recommendations outlined above. Gaming is the perfect environment for a brand to create THEIR army of fanatics, and for social media marketing to prove itself in every part of the marketing mix.
If the gaming industry gets it right, I believe it could do to social media marketing what porn did to the Internet – accelerate its success!
And for whoever does this well, it will be game, set and match!
My last blog ‘Do we need strategists? Hell yeah!’ mentions hiring ‘heads of what’s in vogue’, and I would like to discuss this topic a bit further.
When I say ‘head of what’s in vogue’, yes I do mean Head of Digital, Mobile and now Social Media (in addition to the next thing that will come along).
Do not get me wrong, every new channel, discipline and/or opportunity should be acknowledged and recognised for their potential importance, and the possibilities they may bring.
I’m also all for recruiting necessary skills, and for assigning roles and responsibilities (the buck has to stop somewhere), and finally I have no problem with those roles and responsibilities coming with a title.
What I do have an issue with is agencies and organisations reasons for assigning a head of Digital/Mobile/Social Media. From my experience when such an appointment is made it’s for one of the following reasons:
Everyone else is, so it must be important, hence we should hire someone too
We’re not sure we buy into it, but we do need to be seen as doing so (by the trade press and our clients)
We don’t really have time to think about it so we’ll hire someone to delegate the responsibility to
Hey, maybe it will lead to a new revenue stream
Hiring someone is as good as a change, no? (and yes a lot easier!)
What seems to only rarely be on the agenda is hiring someone to do what is desperately needed, manage the necessary mind-shift to affect real change, rather than just contribute to a campaign, or meet with senior clients (pixie dust).
For that to happen the new Head should spend his time:
Figuring out the role of, for example digital, mobile and social media, in the communications and marketing mix
Identifying its best use in achieving business objectives and marketing goals, this per category, stage in product life cycle and per campaign
Ensuring awareness and REAL understanding of the topic within the agency/company
Making sure everyone in the agency/company understand its role, value, and knows how to use it and what to expect from it
What is needed is to ensure that the right measures are taken to make what is new part of business as usual, so that it becomes EVERYONE’s responsibility.
Because without this happening we will never have what is truly needed and that is great marketing and communications practitioners that can adapt to any change and capitalise on any opportunity (be it a channel, platform or disciple) that comes their way!
So if you hire anyone hire a ‘Head of figuring things out’, a ‘Head of understanding people’, a ‘Head of getting stuff done’ – or alternatively hire smart generalists with deep knowledge and experience for a day, a week a month (we love those in this fluid world so if you’re one, or looking for one, get in touch)
Hire them and let them loose in your organisation with a simple brief, ‘to find answers, to find solutions, to achieve great marketing and communications that is channel, platform or disciple agnostic’ – hire them to achieve companie’s business and marketing objectives (this would be a strategy rather than sprinkling pixie dust).
I’m afraid this will not happen if we keep hiring Head… after Head… after Head of ‘whatever is in vogue’!
If you work in an agency, or for a brand, chances are that you are trying to get your head around digital. Be it how to use it, integrate it, build brands with it, avoid the threats caused by it… or how to make money from it.
To many digital is the hope of a threatened industry.
To us in this fluid world there’s something wrong with this. To us in this fluid world it seems like the industry is missing a vital point.
Let me explain.
The reason we have major media and creative agencies like Ogilvy, Saatchi, MindShare and OMD is because when commercial TV launched, these agencies figured out how to make money from TV advertising.
The key word is FIGURED OUT not TV advertising. Trust me when I say monetizing TV through advertising was far from an easy task.
These agencies realised that they lived in a time where building name recognition and capturing audience attention was essential to the bottom line. To do this well they invented the focus group, the consumer survey, the direct-mail campaign, I could go on. Why? Because they understood that marketing decisions should be based on research and a solid understanding of the target audience.
Their focus was not on TV as a channel…but on the type of people in front of the TV, the context in which they sat there, the kind of lives they lived, and what made them tick.
By understanding people in this environment, and developing TV advertising, these agencies took one giant step into the future, a step that ensured their economic survival for decades (and a lot of Champaign).
So here we are today with a new challenge, and a new opportunity, in different economic times…desperate to take yet another giant step into the future, a step that we hope will ensure our economic survival for decades to come.
There are a few problems with this.
Digital is broader and more complex than TV, it’s not a channel it’s a lifestyle.
The speed of change and technology guarantees only one thing, and that is that change is continuous.
The conditions we live in today are completely different from what they were a few decades ago when TV advertising was born.
Yet, few seem to be taking the time to FIGURE it out – many however are talking the Mad Men learnings and principles and repurposing them. By doing this they are making the mistake of replacing one channel with another… expecting the same result.
What this industry needs is a new breed of mad men (and I mean mad in its true sense). It needs people mad enough to take the time to figure this out, in the context of today, the tools which we have to outer disposal and the reality in which we, and the people we want to get the attention from, live in.
And unlike the original Mad Men we will not be benefiting from one giant step into the future. The competitive advantage will not come from ‘figuring out how to monetize digital’. The competitive advantage will come from understanding that there will probably never be a giant step into the future…but rather a series of small continuous steps…forever and ever and ever.
By that rational, our job as marketers is to build fluidity into the way we think, do research, produce products and services, communicate, interact and manage our organisation. Our job is to learn, to prepare for change and to be ready for the next big thing.
This is why Jonathan MacDonald and I set up this fluid world. Our goal and mission is to help organisations achieve the necessary flexibility to get their head around, not just digital, but anything else on which the survival of their organisation depends on.
djojsIf you work in an agency, or for a brand, chances are that you are trying to get your head around digital. Be it how to use it, integrate it, build brands with it, avoid the threats caused by it… or how to make money from it.
To many digital is the hope of a threatened industry.
To us in this fluid world there’s something wrong with this. To us in this fluid world it seems like the industry is missing a vital point.
Let me explain.
The reason we have major media and creative agencies like Ogilvy, Saatchi, MindShare and OMD is because when commercial TV launched, these agencies figured out how to make money from TV advertising.
The key word is FIGURED OUT not TV advertising. Trust me when I say monetizing TV through advertising was far from an easy task.
These agencies realised that they lived in a time where building name recognition and capturing audience attention was essential to the bottom line. To do this well they invented the focus group, the consumer survey, the direct-mail campaign, I could go on. Why? Because they understood that marketing decisions should be based on research and a solid understanding of the target audience.
Their focus was not on TV as a channel…but on the type of people in front of the TV, the context in which they sat there, the kind of lives they lived, and what made them tick.
By understanding people in this environment, and developing TV advertising, these agencies took one giant step into the future, a step that ensured their economic survival for decades (and a lot of Champaign).
So here we are today with a new challenge, and a new opportunity, in different economic times…desperate to take yet another giant step into the future, a step that we hope will ensure our economic survival for decades to come.
There are a few problems with this.
Digital is broader and more complex than TV, it’s not a channel it’s a lifestyle.
The speed of change and technology guarantees only one thing, and that is that change is continuous.
The conditions we live in today are completely different from what they were a few decades ago when TV advertising was born.
Yet, few seem to be taking the time to FIGURE it out – many however are talking the Mad Men learnings and principles and repurposing them. By doing this they are making the mistake of replacing one channel with another… expecting the same result.
What this industry needs is a new breed of mad men (and I mean mad in its true sense). It needs people mad enough to take the time to figure this out, in the context of today, the tools which we have to outer disposal and the reality in which we, and the people we want to get the attention from, live in.
And unlike the original Mad Men we will not be benefiting from one giant step into the future. The competitive advantage will not come from ‘figuring out how to monetize digital’. The competitive advantage will come from understanding that there will probably never be a giant step into the future…but rather a series of small continuous steps…forever and ever and ever.
By that rational, our job as marketers is to build fluidity into the way we think, do research, produce products and services, communicate, interact and manage our organisation. Our job is to learn, to prepare for change and to be ready for the next big thing.
This is why Jonathan MacDonald and I set up this fluid world. Our goal and mission is to help organisations achieve the necessary flexibility to get their head around, not just digital, but anything else on which the survival of their organisation depends on.
If you work in an agency, or for a brand, chances are that you are trying to get your head around digital. Be it how to use it, integrate it, build brands with it, avoid the threats caused by it… or how to make money from it.
To many digital is the hope of a threatened industry.
To us in this fluid world there’s something wrong with this. To us in this fluid world it seems like the industry is missing a vital point.
Let me explain.
The reason we have major media and creative agencies like Ogilvy, Saatchi, MindShare and OMD is because when commercial TV launched, these agencies figured out how to make money from TV advertising.
The key word is FIGURED OUT not TV advertising. Trust me when I say monetizing TV through advertising was far from an easy task.
These agencies realised that they lived in a time where building name recognition and capturing audience attention was essential to the bottom line. To do this well they invented the focus group, the consumer survey, the direct-mail campaign, I could go on. Why? Because they understood that marketing decisions should be based on research and a solid understanding of the target audience.
Their focus was not on TV as a channel…but on the type of people in front of the TV, the context in which they sat there, the kind of lives they lived, and what made them tick.
By understanding people in this environment, and designing TV advertising around it, these agencies took one giant step into the future, a step that ensured their economic survival for decades (and a lot of Champagne).
So here we are today with a new challenge, and a new opportunity, in different economic times…and desperate to, via digital, take another giant step into the future, a step that we hope will ensure our economic survival for decades to come.
There are a few problems with this.
Digital is broader and more complex than TV, it’s not a channel it’s a lifestyle.
The speed of change and technology guarantees only one thing, and that is that change is continuous.
The world we live in today is completely different from what it was a few decades ago when TV advertising was born.
Yet few seem to be taking the time to FIGURE it out – many however are talking the Mad Men learnings and principles and repurposing them. By doing this they are making the mistake of simply replacing one channel with another… expecting the same result.
What this industry needs is a new breed of mad men (and I mean mad in its true sense because it wont be easy). It needs people mad enough to take the time to figure this out, in the context of today, the tools which we have to our disposal, and the reality in which we, and the people we want to get the attention from, live in.
And unlike the original Mad Men we will not be benefiting from one giant step into the future. The competitive advantage will not come from ‘figuring out how to monetize digital’. The competitive advantage will come from understanding that there will probably never be a giant step into the future…but rather a series of small continuous steps…forever and ever and ever.
By that rational, our job as marketers is not to ‘figure out digital’, but to figure things out, continuously…How? By building fluidity into the way we think, do research, produce products and services, communicate, interact and manage our organisation. Our job is to learn, to prepare for change and to be ready for the next big thing (or to create it).
This is why Jonathan MacDonald and I set up this fluid world. Our goal and mission is to help organisations achieve the necessary fluidity to get their head around, not just digital, but anything else on which their survival depends on.
Actually nothing mad about that…if I can say so myself.
This Saturday I was finally able to make it to the hairdresser. As I sat down to wait for the lovely Jackie I heard the lady next to me say:
“I really want a change, but I don’t want a fringe, I don’t want to cut any of the length of, I don’t want it layered, and I don’t want to colour it’….
For all the men reading this, short of hair extensions she pretty much listed the only ways in which you can change your hair!
As I was hearing this I felt like I was sitting in a conference room listening to a client brief….
“We want to change, but we don’t want to use any new channels, we don’t want to change the budget, or the partners we work with, and it would be great if we could keep a lot of the creative, oh yeah and whatever we decide to change we need to be sure that the new way will work”.
Can such a brief be successful? I would say it depends on what you mean with ‘we need to be sure it will work’. If the goal is in fact to change then I can categorically say that no, it won’t work!
The reason is very simple, all you have to do is look at the definition of change.
According to Wikipedia it’s ‘the process of becoming different’.
So change by definition means you have to do something different. Doing something different also means taking a risk. No client brief, be it to a hairdresser or an agency which starts of by listing everything they are not prepared to do will ever lead to change, and hence never lead to anything different.
Change is not a phrase, it’s not a request on a brief! Change is a frame of mind…it’s a way of being, a way of thinking, a way of managing, a way of assessing opportunities, it’s about trusting your instinct and the people you work with…it’s a lifestyle…
All this is what will allow you to change, to do something different! Just look at the companies we keep talking about, writing about and admiring…look at Google, Apple, Nike and ask them how many ‘we can’t do’s’ there are in their briefs.
So when Jackie turned up and proposed the one thing I had decided I did not want, a fringe – there was only one answer I could give her…hell yes, go for it Jackie, cut me a fringe!
I had the pleasure last week of seeing a senior representative from a publishing company speak. I say the pleasure because his presentation could not have been more different than what one would expect from an incumbent in a threatened industry.
Not only was it honest, inspiring and realistic, but it left you with some hope that maybe, just maybe there was a future for this company, one based on a willingness to challenge themselves and to innovate.
Innovation is often stopped because of one of the following reasons.
High cost structures prevent investment in areas that do not generate an ROI above a certain size. The first slides in the presentation covered the organisations office move, and described the details around a serious down sizing project. No more plush offices, and today only a third of the size it used to be was not described as a problem but as an opportunity to integrated between departments, to collaborate and to embrace the future.
A focus on the past (especially if it represent ‘the good old times’). It’s rare to listen to someone dismiss any strategy beyond 18 months as pointless due to the pace of change in today’s business world. It’s rare to hear someone discuss how their newly developed purpose statement (or vision) will be irrelevant 12-18 months from now. It’s even more rare to hear someone do so with a confident smile, rare, but incredibly inspiring!
An unwillingness to cannibalise on core products. I was amazed to listen to someone who openly spoke about how their new digital products would decrease the circulation figures of their off-line product (for you who are not in advertising, advertising revenue it dependent on high circulation figures). This is of course not a secret to anyone, but how many are prepared to not only accept it, but to barge ahead under that premise?
The immediate revenue from a new idea is seen as too small compared to the revenue derived from core activities, and is therefore rejected by the incumbent. I saw no sign of this in the presentation, instead relatively modest revenue figures achieved from sales of an app was referred to with the respect that can only come from someone who understands that times are changing.
I had the pleasure last week of listening to a senior representative from a publishing company speak about their digital strategy. I say the pleasure because his presentation could not have been more different than what one would expect from an incumbent in a threatened industry.
Not only was it honest, inspiring and realistic, but it left you with some hope that maybe, just maybe there was a bright future for this company, one based on a willingness to challenge themselves and to innovate.
So why was I so inspired by what I saw?
Change and innovation is on everyone’s lips, innovation appear in many mission statements, change and innovation is a priority for most senior managers…yet change and innovation is rare. Everything I heard during the speech showed how much this department has embraced the need to change, and how much it was working hard at breaking the innovation barrier.
Change through innovation is often stopped because of one of the following reasons.
A high cost structure prevents investment in areas that do not guarantee a revenue above a certain size. It was interesting to see how the first slides in the presentation covered the organisations office move, and described the details around a serious down sizing project. No more plush offices, and a department a third of the size it used to be. This however was not described as a problem but as an opportunity to integrated between departments, to collaborate and to embrace the future.
A focus on the past (especially if it represents ‘the good old times’). It’s rare to hear someone entirely focused on the future. It’s rare to listen to someone dismiss any strategy beyond 18 months as pointless due to the pace of change in today’s business world. It’s rare to hear someone discuss how their newly developed purpose statement (or vision) will be irrelevant 12-18 months down the road. It’s even more rare to hear someone do so with a confident smile, yes rare, but incredibly inspiring!
A fear of cannibalising the core product. I was amazed to listen to someone who openly spoke about how their new digital products would decrease the circulation figure of their off-line product (for you who are not in advertising, advertising revenue it dependent on high circulation figures). This is of course not a secret to anyone, but how many are prepared to not only accept it, but to barge ahead under that premise?
The immediate revenue from a new idea is seen as too small compared to the revenue derived from core activities, and is therefore rejected by the incumbent. I saw no sign of this in the presentation, instead relatively modest revenue figures achieved from sales of an app was referred to with the respect that can only come from someone who understands that times are changing.
Facilitating change and innovation is at the heart of what this fluid world does, and it’s working with, or being exposed to people like this that makes us love what we do.
So to anyone out there busy smashing the present in favour of the future , I say “I can’t wait to see what you build!”
The Observer published an excellent article today called ‘Democratic, but dangerous too: how the web changed our world’.
It crystalised something that has been bothering me about the Internet, or to be more precise about the way it’s often used in marketing, and therefore the effect it’s having on how we are seen as people.
The article says it so much better than I would, so here it is.
‘The surveillance implications for this [the internet] are clear, but there are wider cultural implications when the money people behind the scenes get their rewards for feeding us exactly what we want. Amazon’s recommendation engine, Last.fm’s social music service, even news sites such as the Huffington Post, reduce the possibility for serendipity by serving up what they think we want, channelling us into a loop of confirmation.’
It seems that in the early years of the Internet it gave people the chance to break away from being able to be put in predefined boxes… and then through our own behaviour, some tracking, some ad and information serving… there we are again, back to being categorized and put into bland boxes.
The author Douglas Rushkoff put this brilliantly when he said: “The more like one of my kind of person I become, the less me I am, and the more I am a demographic type.”
I guess this sounds like a marketer’s dream, a world where we break people down into categories so we can do our job. To me it sounds like we are missing something important.
It feels like marketers are missing the opportunity to really understand me. This has the unfortunate outcome of me having to live in a world where people continuously make assumptions about me. I bought a book about birds, I must be a bird watcher (not so much!). Ignoring the individual means that marketers live in a world where they continuously miss the point of, and the opportunity brought by the Internet.
It also feels like marketers are missing out on the opportunity that comes with randomness….the more people cross fertilise between topics, the more they have their views and opinions challenged, the more they stumble upon different things, the better the quality of their ideas. And in a world of co-creation this is not just relevant to employees, but also to customers. Ignoring this means that marketers live in a world where there is a risk of marketing myopia, not just on a corporate level, but on a social and cultural level, a myopia that could lead to a decrease in the quality of ideas, and therefore also of the products, services and solutions organisations offer.
It also seems that by fixating on what people are doing (and on putting them in boxes), marketers are not paying attention to what they’re NOT doing. In a world that only pays attention to the do’s, all we will achieve as marketers is incremental innovation; rather than radical innovation. Nothing wrong with incremental innovation, but not exactly the key competitive advantage companies should strive for!
I’m not saying the Internet is not a wealth of information and inspiration. It most definitely is! I’m simply stating that the social and cultural risk that come with reinforcing similar behaviour (mainly driven by a wish to control), could mean that rather than capitalising on the paradigm shift caused by the Interenet and going forward, we will start going backward.
A good marketer allows his curiosity to go everywhere (and therefore also the people he interacts with), a good marketer does not just follow people’s behaviour (or competition’s) and act accordingly, they lead the way, often without information or data, a good marketer gives people not only what they want, but also what we need, and what they never knew they wanted…
…but most importantly, a good marketer celebrates individuals and individualism (not boxes)!
I love the 1st of January. It’s one of the most inspiring days of the year – a fresh start, the beginning of something new!
I spent most of the day traveling with no one to distract me – one wonderful day to myself to think about the year ahead, and everything I want to achieve.
Leaning back in my airplane seat, looking at the alps and the white snow, I thought of Zinedine Zidane (a retired French World Cup-winning footballer) who this year climbed Mont-Blanc for charity, I thought of Susan Boyle leaving Blackburn (Scotland) to give her dream of being a singer a chance, I thought of Sam Walton (founder of Wal-mart) who in 1991, when asked about the recession, said, ‘I’ve thought about it, but I have chosen not to participate.”, I thought about my local homeless man, who despite everything, has the most wonderful attitude and outlook on life…I thought of many people and things that have inspired me…
… I also thought of two ads that inspired me, and keep doing so!
Apple’s Think different
If you were alive in 1997 I doubt that you will have forgotten the black and white add with old footage of icons such as Bob Dylan, Martin Luther King, Gandhi and Picasso….the list goes on. Take a look it’s worth it.
If you don’t have time here is the text. “Here’s to the crazy ones. The misfits. The rebels. The troublemakers. The round pegs in the square holes. The ones who see things differently. They’re not fond of rules. And they have no respect for the status quo. You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them. About the only thing you can’t do is ignore them. Because they change things. They push the human race forward. And while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius. Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do”.
Adidas’ Impossible is nothing Muhammad Ali Vs. Laila Ali
“Impossible isn’t a fact. It’s an opinion. Like when they said it would be impossible to beat Sonny Liston. He’s too powerful, too experienced. Or when they said don’t take the fight in Zaire. He’s too young, too strong, he’s gonna destroy Ali. So when my father looks impossible in the eye. And defeats it, again and again. what do you think I’m gonna do when I hear people say a woman shouldn’t box…yeah that’s right. Rumble young girl, rumble!” Impossible is nothing.
I know 2009 was a tough business year for many, a year where ‘thinking differently’ and believing that ‘impossible is nothing’ may have had to take as back seat to surviving.
But I’m thinking in addition to drinking less, losing weight, going to the gym…maybe this year we can all add ‘thinking differently’ and believing that ‘impossible is nothing’ to our new year resolutions list.
Lets do it in the name of making a difference, lets do it to pay homage to some of the greatest icons in the world, lets do it for progress, (and yes even lets do it for quality TV advertising), lets do it because we can …
![[del.icio.us]](http://www.liriandersson.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/delicious.png)
![[Digg]](http://www.liriandersson.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/digg.png)
![[Facebook]](http://www.liriandersson.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/facebook.png)
![[LinkedIn]](http://www.liriandersson.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/linkedin.png)
![[Technorati]](http://www.liriandersson.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/technorati.png)
![[Twitter]](http://www.liriandersson.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/twitter.png)
![[Email]](http://www.liriandersson.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/email.png)
) than staring at screens of different sizes.
