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’!
A few weeks ago I read something quite depressing … apparently there is very little demand for strategists on the conference circle…
Does this mean that our industry has little interest for strategy in general? Does this mean that strategy has been replaced by things we can see, we can touch, things we can play with?
It would explain a lot.
It would explain why most of what we see awarded, rewarded, celebrated at our conferences, and written about in our blogs, are a series of activities and tactics which at beast sprinkle pixie dust but rarely lead to an increase in sales, or a major shift in brand perception (Yershon and Jmac I know you’re with me on this one )!
It would explain why people believe that facebook is a strategy, it would explain why people treat a platform like mobile as if it was a strategy, and it would explain why companies keep hiring a head of ‘anything that is in vogue’.
It would also explain why, when standing in front of a corporate audience, people look blankly at you when you ask them if they know what their company strategy, and/or vision is.
It seems like the future of strategy is under threat, and strategists are an endangered species.
This is serious, I mean very serious. We are in a period of change, a period of flux, and I can’t think of a time when strategy is more needed than during a period of change and flux!
Sun Tzu wrote of war “All men can see these tactics whereby I conquer, but what none can see is the strategy out of which victory is evolved”.
Be under no illusion, business and marketing over the next couple of years will resemble a war, a war where only the ones with a clear and solid plan of action (a strategy) will survive.
And be under no illusion, the organisations you see celebrated and hailed on a regular basis for their digital campaigns, for their innovative use of technology and channels (for their tactical activities) …
… the organisations you see achieve victory in changing, confusing and scary times …
… these organisations are the same companies that, like Sun Tzu, have a solid strategy to back up everything they do.
Strategy is the difference between sprinkling pixie dust and achieving a real impact, strategy is the difference between ad hoc success and a sustainable business, strategy is the difference between winning and losing the war!
Don’t take my word for it, but do take Sun Tzu’s – and next time you organise a conference, do roll in the strategists, it’s by involving them that real, valuable and long-term activities will emerge!
I love when I catch myself seeing the world through old glasses. It’s not a proud moment when it happens, but it’s an important one. Realising I run the risk of being out of date is a harsh wake-up call that generally keeps me on my toes for a year or so… and this morning I had such a wake-up call.
For all my life I’ve seen Sweden as a modern, innovative, creative country, and also one at the forefront of design! I even wrote a blog about it called ‘What’s up with Sweden and all its innovation”. In it I describe why I believe a small country like Sweden (a country I lived in until the age of 18) has produced so many big brands, and why it’s responsible for so many disruptive innovations.
So you can imagine my reaction reading the below title from Tyler Brûlé’s (Editor and Chief of Monocle) column in this weekend edition of the FT.
A decline into Swede nothings!!!! I nearly spilled my Cortado as I jumped off my seat! What is the man talking about?! Has he never heard of IKEA, H&M, Tetra Pak, Volvo, SAAB and Ericsson?!!!
I kept feeling annoyed until I got to the following caption ‘Swedish goods and services used to be a refreshing constant in my daily life but somehow they vanished – no cars, no telecommunications, no media, no hotels, no airlines. H&M and IKEA might continue their global assault (along with the odd crime author) waving a small blue and yellow flag, but increasingly Sweden Inc seems a little less potent’.
It made me think…Ericsson was founded in the late 19 century, Volvo in the 1920’s, IKEA and H&M in the 40’s, Tetra Pak in the early 50’s. Many of these organisations had their glory days in the 90’s, which also happens to be the last decade during which I lived in Sweden!
I’m embarrassed to admit that I had not questioned my assumption and beliefs about Sweden being an innovative country for over 15 years, and in these times that may as well be 100 years!
Not the end of the world I know. But take a break and think about yourself as the manger, strategist, consultant, and or leader you are, and then think about how often you challenge your assumptions or the conventional wisdom around which you base your decisions.
Not as often as you should, of that I’m sure…Now think about how that affects your decision-making!
There is no doubt that to ensure relevance, to ensure quality of advice and decision-making, we need to ask ourselves regularly (as in on a daily basis):
• How long have I been doing, and why do I do things this way?
• When did I decide what I believe on a certain topic to be true, and is it still?
• Is what I do/think still valid?
• What has happened that could/should change my assumptions?
There is nothing new about this… yet most of us fall into the ‘assumption trap’. To avoid this we must challenge our thinking by surrounding ourselves with people that are different to us, that come from different backgrounds and have different experiences.
I’m lucky to be part of this fluid world, and to have a business partner and clients who don’t allow me to have too many moments like this morning. Because of this I usually don’t need Tyler and the FT to remind me of the fact that I don’t drive a Swedish car, and that my phone, clothes and furniture aren’t Swedish (I mean really Liri!!! – pretty obvious!)!
Having said that, It’s with a bit of sadness though, that I bid farewell to my innovative Swedish legacy!
This piece deals with when all else fail, control communications.
I’m prepared to accept that there are times when you are forced to cooperate with organisations whose actions are not under your control. If you happen to find yourself in such a situation, then you must be responsible for, and take control of the one thing you do have power over – your communications.
Let me give you an example.
A few years ago I bought a TV from John Lewis.
Anyone who has had the pleasure of buying anything in John Lewis’ electronics department will know that it’s a pure pleasure. The waiting time to be served is short, the staff helpful and polite, the advice based on customer need and not on the desire to up-sell, and the choice available more than acceptable. So far all good (and yes under the control of John Lewis).
However it all goes horribly wrong just a few days later (while I’m still in the post purchase anxiety of ‘do I really need a new TV?’ period – and also within the time frame when I can bring the TV back).
A letter arrives in the post, it’s not a ‘we hope you enjoy your TV’ message from John Lewis, but a threatening letter from the TV license people.
A letter treating me like a criminal because I have just bought a TV and, according to them, don’t have a license for it. No consideration that I may have bought it as a present for someone, or that I may actually have a license (which I did!) – just a threatening letter full of assumptions.
In one second my warm and fuzzy feelings for John Lewis disappears! Warm and fuzzy feelings I had because of an excellent service that I’m sure cost John Lewis a lot of money to deliver on! “But this has nothing to do with John Lewis” I hear you say!
But it does!
I understand John Lewis legally have to inform the license people when someone buys a TV from them. I also understand that they have no control of the letter that is ultimately sent to their customers (although if I were them I would fight this one all the way to court!).
What I DON’T understand is why they did not have the courtesy to inform me about this legal obligation, and about the letter that would arrive at my doorstep a few days later. What I don’t understand is that they don’t try to separate my experience with them, with my experience with the TV license people. What I don’t understand is that in a situation where they can’t control the actions of an organisation they are forced to cooperate with, over whom they have no power, they don’t control and manage what they do have power of, the communications.
All it would have taken is a “We would like to inform you that we legally have to inform the organisation responsible for TV licenses about your purchase, and that you will be receiving a letter from them within a week”.
Just one simple phrase, yet a phrase that would mean a 100% disassociation from an unpleasant experience that is about to happen, one that could damage their brand, one phrase that would leave the customer with the feeling that John Lewis is on ‘their’ side!
As an organisation you must have a clear understanding of what you can and can’t control. As an organisation you must have a clear understanding as to the possible damaging scenarios around what you can’t control. As an organisation you must make sure that you use communications in your favour to avoid any negative associations from the behaviour of any of those suppliers/collaborators.
But use communications as a last option, control and prevention will always be more powerful! And after all, if Apple can force Vodafone to make each customers open the iPhone package themselves when they buy a new iPhone because ‘it’s part of the customer experience’ (bearing in mind that I as a customer can’t get Vodafone to do anything) – then everything is possible!
This is a continuation of my most recent blog ‘A bad piece of meat will always be a bad piece of meat!’ where I discussed how choosing suppliers based on image, price, or size can often lead to less than satisfactory results… In my case a very bad piece of meat from Tesco’s.
You could argue that if I could not see how bad the meat was through the packaging, then how could Tesco’s have seen it? You could then also argue that it’s therefore not their fault!
Wrong! Why? Because I don’t care who actually packaged the meet, I don’t care if Tesco’s was conned by their supplier, I just care about who sold me the product, because it’s with that organisation I have a relationship, and it’s that organisation I’m looking to trust!
Whoever is responsible for ‘the last mile’ – lets call it the royal mile (the bit just before the product or service touches me), whoever’s brand is on the packaging is the ONLY company I will blame when something goes wrong!
So when I buy a pair of Nike shoes I expect them to have been manufactured somewhere where working conditions are good, and wages are descent. I don’t care that Nike sells millions of shoes and pieces of clothing each year, I don’t care that Nike does not produce any of these products themselves, I don’t care that they have contracts with manufacturing facilities located throughout the world, and I don’t care that these contractors subcontract to companies hiring nearly 800,000 people working in factories throughout Asia.
When Unilever buys palm-oil from the Indonesian company Duta Palma who has a practice of clearing protected rainforest to make way for plantations – I don’t care who ultimately did what, and I therefore end up blaming Unilever, not Duta Palma.
All I care about is that I get the quality I pay for. All I care about is that my shoe supplier, and the company responsible for my beauty care, in their quest to get me the quality I pay for behave in the right way! All I care about is that the brands I have a relationship with, and I trust, do the right thing – because when they act, they also act on my behalf, they act on the behalf of all their customers – so what they do is not just their decision, what they do does not just affect their brand, it affects all our personal brands!
In this collaborative world we have to accept that our suppliers are our responsibility. In this collaborative world we have to make sure the right systems are in place to ensure customers buy what they believe they buy. In this collaborative world we have to make sure that not only we, but our suppliers do the right thing!
Hard? I’m sure it is, but think of all the times you have bought products without any quality problems. Think of all the multinationals that have never been caught out like Unilever and Nike – we can reasonable assume that many of them have not been caught because they have done nothing wrong.
So although it’s hard to control your entire value chain – it’s clearly not impossible!
Oh yeah, and doing the less of two evils is just well, not good enough!
I don’t often go to Tesco to buy real food. Not only because I find it annoying how the people working there always seem to insist on packing the eggs first…and finish with the very heavy bottle of sparkling water….but mainly because I have a Waitrose around the corner (and really why would you go anywhere else?).
Well the other day, being in a hurry, I made an exception and popped into Tesco for some meet and vegetables. Nothing wrong with this meet, I think you’ll agree! I would go as far as saying a nice pair of steaks, and at an amazing price (£5 if I recall correctly)!
Well not so much! Getting ready to start cooking for my brother I opened the package, grabbed the steaks, and there it was, the whole ugly truth!
I will never understand why companies think deceiving customers in this way is a good idea. Yes you have succeeded to flog an item, or if you are a consultant a project…but the truth is a bad piece of meat will always be a bad piece of meat!
I usually put more thought into where I buy my dinner, and the one time I didn’t I ended up having to run for take away. Far from a disaster I agree, especially as I prefer Sushi to steak any day!
However, and on a more serious note, I’m often amazed at the criteria used by an organisation when choosing who to partner with, or who to hire as a supplier or consultant, where the stakes are a lot higher than buying meat.
There seems to be three extreme camps.
1) The decision of who to work with is often based on a shiny exterior like a fancy website, a cool office, or a flashy presentation at a conference, this without questioning the depth of the offer, or the long-term validity of the solution (yes the steak looks great!).
2) Or the decision is based on price, without much consideration for the lost opportunity of working with a lesser quality supplier, or the potential negative impact to the business following inexperienced advice can have (the steak was cheap!).
3) And finally, the selection criteria is based on size or brand name. We want to be seen to work with the biggest agency, consulting firm or organisation, ignoring that the high price tag that comes with working with these companies does not necessarily reflect the quality of the advice or work, but rather the high cost structure (OK so this one may not be relevant I hear you think, after all ‘every little helps’ is possible because Tesco is big – yes, but then what about quality?!).
Please don’t get me wrong; I’m not saying that any of the above will automatically lead to a disastrous outcome! Often it doesn’t.
What I’m saying is; when you base your decision of where to buy your meat simply on being in a hurry, and on the basis that it looks good from the outside, and when you think you got a real bargain because of a cheap price tag, don’t be surprised if you end up having to throw it away and run for Sushi.
If you choose your suppliers based on the wrong criteria, there is a chance that you will end up wasting a lot of time, and money, in addition to potentially damaging your reputation.
So don’t do what I did, instead choose them based on their reputation and experience, in my case that would have meant going to Waitrose!
As tradition has it I drop my strategy and business hat during holidays in favour of my storytelling hat.
Today as I stepped out of my mum’s house in Lausanne, Switzerland to a sunny but cold day I was welcomed by a familiar smell that reminded me of my childhood.
As a kid in Uppsala, Sweden my favourite day of the year was always the same one, the first day when I could feel the tarmac under my soles rather than snow. Nothing beat that feeling, the feeling of, after a long, cold, dark winter full of snow, being able to touch, and see hard ground again.
Every year, on that day, I would go to the cupboard and dig out my clogs and my skipping rope, I would run outside and find a square meter of snow-less ground and I would skip and skip and skip and skip for hours while breathing in the ‘almost spring air’ – and that air always had a special smell!
Today I was reminded of that smell, a smell that to me signifies something fresh, a new beginning, a smell that always filled me, and still does with excitement and hope!
For many companies this has been the winter of discontent. For many companies the winter darkness must have made it impossible to see light at the end of the tunnel.
For many companies it must have felt like no layers of clothing could keep them warm. For many companies the last year must have felt like wading through heaps of snow. For many companies the last year must have felt like a Swedish winter.
So I really hope that all of you working in these companies have your own version of my story, your own version of what signifies a new beginning, your own version of what makes you feel hopeful, your own special smell – because nothing beats how I used to feel in that moment when I knew that the snow was finally melting away and that I would be able to skip and ware clogs for many many months to come!
As I walked down the street I wished the shops weren’t closed as I found myself wanting to go downtown to buy myself a pair of clogs and a skipping rope so that I could spend the rest of the day skipping. But I still celebrated my day, sitting by the lake, breathing in THAT air, smelling THAT smell!
So on this Easter Monday do pull out ‘your moment’, the one that makes you feel everything is possible, who knows what business miracles may come of it!
And let’s not forget that winter, no matter how tough of a one it was, will ALWAYS be followed by spring!
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!”
![[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)
)!
