What's new in chalk art?
Here are the results from Flickr for the search 'chalk art'. This is part of an experiment for showcasing clients' imagery.
And using a MediaRSS feed for the photos used on this blog.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Friday, February 05, 2010
VC Paradox
What does it take to get your cake and eat it too?
The other day on Seth's Blog a post on "Hunters vs. Farmers" hinted at the dilemma venture capitalists have with companies. In short:
Only hunters can bag the deal + raise money; only farmers can nurture it into a cash crop.
For start-ups it isn't hunting and it isn't farming; its both. Hunting is a short-term, transactional process - I don't care what the next deal is, as long as I get it. Farming on the other hand is a planned, sustained activity over a number of seasons. The grounds suitable for hunting are rarely the same as those good for farming. It is very difficult for a company to both, but that is exactly what a successful start-up has to do.
There must be some mix that reflects the rapid evolution or mutation of a company from concept to sustainable business. Call it hurming or fanting or something else entirely (I skipped the temptation to use farting). This is why start-ups require a team, not just an individual, that is both harmonious and distinct.
The other day on Seth's Blog a post on "Hunters vs. Farmers" hinted at the dilemma venture capitalists have with companies. In short:
Only hunters can bag the deal + raise money; only farmers can nurture it into a cash crop.
For start-ups it isn't hunting and it isn't farming; its both. Hunting is a short-term, transactional process - I don't care what the next deal is, as long as I get it. Farming on the other hand is a planned, sustained activity over a number of seasons. The grounds suitable for hunting are rarely the same as those good for farming. It is very difficult for a company to both, but that is exactly what a successful start-up has to do.
There must be some mix that reflects the rapid evolution or mutation of a company from concept to sustainable business. Call it hurming or fanting or something else entirely (I skipped the temptation to use farting). This is why start-ups require a team, not just an individual, that is both harmonious and distinct.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Social Media, Strategy and Moon Shots
How do these ideas relate?
In a recent tweet I made the statement:
It seems to have touched a nerve with an "amen" and a couple of RTs; so now I have to explain myself.
The above questions apply to any media since the word social is simply a qualifier for a type of media. Do we get worked up about 'what's our billboard strategy?' just because everybody is out driving around? Nope. And, since social media are tools for facilitating sharing (more on my thoughts defining social media here) having a strategy for a tool is viewing everything from the hammer or drill's point of view.
As a business we need to achieve an objective defined in clear, measurable terms. The best objective I can think of is:
Strategy is not how we will achieve an objective; it is why will achieve one.
Business strategy is often framed in two questions: Where will we play? and Why will we win? Neither of which focus on the how; that comes later. Positioning, differentiation, and alignment all help to frame the answers to those questions into a cohesive reason why the objective will be met. In fact, strategy could often be replaced with the phrase 'reason for success.' The moon shot was successful because people, industries, the military, and the government all came together for this mission. That was the strategy: cooperation and collaboration on a humongous scale.
In a more down-to-earth and contemporary problem, consider the marketing of Master's degrees - a very competitive market (have clients in this world.) If the objective is to be a ranked program then there needs to be a reason for the outcome. "Quality", "reputation", and "scores" are assessments or metrics that back up the reason. An example of strategy for a well-funded research university might be 'commercialize our research into a series of successful start-ups.' Now that's a differentiated strategy.
Only when we know why we may be successful should we look at the portfolio of tools and figure out which ones to use. Given expansive goals and strategies sometimes we have to make up the tools to do the job. In 1961 we didn't have the rockets (or even the knowledge) to achieve the objective. We created the tools. It was not 'what is our Redstone strategy' it was 'how will the Redstone rocket help implement the strategy?' The Redstone rocket provided a platform for man's entry into space - it was a first step.
Like all media, social media has its strengths and weaknesses; it is appropriate for some objectives and strategies but not others. If the strategy will benefit from collaboration and sharing then social media would be appropriate. If the strategy requires stealth and big bang then it would not be appropriate. Since these elements were so much a part of the success of the moon race it probably would have been considered by the program director.
So, if social media where around in 1961 - how would it help create a sense of community and purpose in order to put a man on the moon?
In a recent tweet I made the statement:
The question isn't "What is our social media strategy?" but "How does social media help implement our strategy?"
It seems to have touched a nerve with an "amen" and a couple of RTs; so now I have to explain myself.
The above questions apply to any media since the word social is simply a qualifier for a type of media. Do we get worked up about 'what's our billboard strategy?' just because everybody is out driving around? Nope. And, since social media are tools for facilitating sharing (more on my thoughts defining social media here) having a strategy for a tool is viewing everything from the hammer or drill's point of view.
As a business we need to achieve an objective defined in clear, measurable terms. The best objective I can think of is:
"I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the Earth." President Kennedy - May, 1961Clear. Unambiguous. Measurable.
Strategy is not how we will achieve an objective; it is why will achieve one.
Business strategy is often framed in two questions: Where will we play? and Why will we win? Neither of which focus on the how; that comes later. Positioning, differentiation, and alignment all help to frame the answers to those questions into a cohesive reason why the objective will be met. In fact, strategy could often be replaced with the phrase 'reason for success.' The moon shot was successful because people, industries, the military, and the government all came together for this mission. That was the strategy: cooperation and collaboration on a humongous scale.
In a more down-to-earth and contemporary problem, consider the marketing of Master's degrees - a very competitive market (have clients in this world.) If the objective is to be a ranked program then there needs to be a reason for the outcome. "Quality", "reputation", and "scores" are assessments or metrics that back up the reason. An example of strategy for a well-funded research university might be 'commercialize our research into a series of successful start-ups.' Now that's a differentiated strategy.
Just how you pull off a strategy is all about tactics.
Only when we know why we may be successful should we look at the portfolio of tools and figure out which ones to use. Given expansive goals and strategies sometimes we have to make up the tools to do the job. In 1961 we didn't have the rockets (or even the knowledge) to achieve the objective. We created the tools. It was not 'what is our Redstone strategy' it was 'how will the Redstone rocket help implement the strategy?' The Redstone rocket provided a platform for man's entry into space - it was a first step.
Like all media, social media has its strengths and weaknesses; it is appropriate for some objectives and strategies but not others. If the strategy will benefit from collaboration and sharing then social media would be appropriate. If the strategy requires stealth and big bang then it would not be appropriate. Since these elements were so much a part of the success of the moon race it probably would have been considered by the program director.
So, if social media where around in 1961 - how would it help create a sense of community and purpose in order to put a man on the moon?
Monday, January 25, 2010
Venture Capitalists and the CMO
Who's the most important member of the team?
There has been a lot written about the success or failure of a start-up resting on the shoulders of the CEO. While the buck stops there, where does it start?
For technology companies the marketing function represents the conduit for moving from start-up to business. As commented on "Cool is not a Strategy" it is a long way from cool to cash. Since venture funding goes to firms that have proven that there already 'is something' the real challenge becomes translating early adoption into a sustainable growth model. Since marketers are paid to change history (new products, markets and segments) they are responsible for the road map of getting from here to there. This means crafting a vision of the customers' world, even if they themselves can't, and leading the development of a series of incremental steps to get there.
In a recent WSJ article on strategic planning the point was made that plans needed to be much more flexible and adaptable because we can "no longer count on a 'reasonable set of assumptions'". Who better than the CMO of a young company to take on the responsibility of understanding the shifting sands? She is out there every day; she can sense opportunity and respond.
So when the venture capitalist asks about your team start first with the CMO. Don't have one? Get one even if you have to rent one for a while. This is too important to leave to the intern.
There has been a lot written about the success or failure of a start-up resting on the shoulders of the CEO. While the buck stops there, where does it start?
For technology companies the marketing function represents the conduit for moving from start-up to business. As commented on "Cool is not a Strategy" it is a long way from cool to cash. Since venture funding goes to firms that have proven that there already 'is something' the real challenge becomes translating early adoption into a sustainable growth model. Since marketers are paid to change history (new products, markets and segments) they are responsible for the road map of getting from here to there. This means crafting a vision of the customers' world, even if they themselves can't, and leading the development of a series of incremental steps to get there.
In a recent WSJ article on strategic planning the point was made that plans needed to be much more flexible and adaptable because we can "no longer count on a 'reasonable set of assumptions'". Who better than the CMO of a young company to take on the responsibility of understanding the shifting sands? She is out there every day; she can sense opportunity and respond.
So when the venture capitalist asks about your team start first with the CMO. Don't have one? Get one even if you have to rent one for a while. This is too important to leave to the intern.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Cool is Not a Strategy
Why should cool be banned?
Last week I sat through several presentations by start-ups; technical companies working in very different areas. One phrase in the pitches stuck out like a sore thumb: 'this is cool'. While cool relates to passion and can sustain a lot of late hours of development, it does not necessarily relate to a sustainable business. Ok, Apple may have proven that wrong at the perceptual level - but they are the exception and certainly didn't start that way.
Customers rarely buy because something is cool, they buy because they suffer a pain. It is this transition from garage geek to a business that requires a heavy dose of marketing. It is our job as marketers to align the solution to the need and make the pain go away.
There are numerous ways to present a start-up, often rooted in financials, market sizing, and barriers to entry. What I really want to hear in that first minute from entrepreneurs and innovators is: "Here is the pain that really pissed me off." Now if enough people suffer the same thing and they can solve it in a cool way, so much the better.
Last week I sat through several presentations by start-ups; technical companies working in very different areas. One phrase in the pitches stuck out like a sore thumb: 'this is cool'. While cool relates to passion and can sustain a lot of late hours of development, it does not necessarily relate to a sustainable business. Ok, Apple may have proven that wrong at the perceptual level - but they are the exception and certainly didn't start that way.
Customers rarely buy because something is cool, they buy because they suffer a pain. It is this transition from garage geek to a business that requires a heavy dose of marketing. It is our job as marketers to align the solution to the need and make the pain go away.
There are numerous ways to present a start-up, often rooted in financials, market sizing, and barriers to entry. What I really want to hear in that first minute from entrepreneurs and innovators is: "Here is the pain that really pissed me off." Now if enough people suffer the same thing and they can solve it in a cool way, so much the better.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Presenting Social Media as a Bike
How do I explain social media?
A while ago I wrote a post trying to explain social media using an analogy of bicycles. Since this concept has found its way into meetings I summarized it in presentation form and posted it on slideshare. Here it is for those interested in another take:
A while ago I wrote a post trying to explain social media using an analogy of bicycles. Since this concept has found its way into meetings I summarized it in presentation form and posted it on slideshare. Here it is for those interested in another take:
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Job Descriptions for Products
What role does a product fulfill?
It's an old saying that customers don't need drills, they need holes.
Simply put, we buy products to increase our personal satisfaction - by either improving the positive or eliminating the negative. So, we know what we want, but may have difficulty expressing it to companies.
A good job description consists of three key elements:
1. An overall description of the role.
2. A defined set of responsibilities
3. A clear set of experiences or qualifications.
Sounds like what we should publish for products.
For a good description this topic see "Finding the Right Job for Your Product" in MIT Sloan Management Review, Spring 2007.
Technology Branding and Positioning
What are the biggest challenges for new products?
Positioning products, particularly technical ones, requires addressing three key tradeoffs.
1. Omnipotence vs. Versatility: you can't be all things to all people.
2. Marketing vs. Engineering: you offer features, but people need solutions.
3. Early adopters vs. Mainstream: the original problem solved is rarely the same as what the overall market needs.
Giving up perceived size of market in order to gain traction is often a difficult concept to swallow. However, it is sually worth it in the long run.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
New B2B Tools: White Room and Paper Chunks
What should we do next with white papers?
The following is excerpted from a position paper I've been nurturing for some time; thought it was about time I shared it. This renewed interest was prompted by a webinar I recently heard on B2B marketing and social media from Tippit.
Originating in British Parliament, white papers present an authoritative overview of a particular issue and layout specific actions. Businesses adopted the term in the ‘90s as a moniker for sales and marketing documents that aim to educate the audience.
In B2B marketing, white papers are an integral part of the buying process and serve a variety of purposes. From the vendor point of view white papers accomplish the following:
While white papers are read and used by a large number buyers (and committees) the form factor remains the old document-based ‘paper’ in this day of tweets, Diggs, sharing and comments.
Borrowing from the success of ‘social media news rooms’ this [post] describes a new delivery model for this valuable content. Rather than just producing a PDF, the social media white paper consists of a variety of elements that facilitate content distribution and sharing of information. From quotes to slides to a printable version, reports are presented in a variety of forms that make it most useful to the audience.
White Room
Rather than a listing of PDF files behind a registration page, the concept creates a diverse set of objects that readers can use to meet their needs. To accomplish this; a new section [should] be added to a firm’s website tentatively called the ‘white room’ – a combination of the white paper and news room. To provide control of the functionality, content, and track distribution the white room is a separate part of a web site that contains a variety of sections. Using the standard sections of NewsCactus or PitchEngine as a guide it could take the form of:
Paper Chunks
The Internet has changed how we read and consume content [see the "Twitter Paradox"]. To facilitate consumption and spreading of information the following should be supplied.
Business Model
I have some ideas here too....
The following is excerpted from a position paper I've been nurturing for some time; thought it was about time I shared it. This renewed interest was prompted by a webinar I recently heard on B2B marketing and social media from Tippit.
Originating in British Parliament, white papers present an authoritative overview of a particular issue and layout specific actions. Businesses adopted the term in the ‘90s as a moniker for sales and marketing documents that aim to educate the audience.
In B2B marketing, white papers are an integral part of the buying process and serve a variety of purposes. From the vendor point of view white papers accomplish the following:
- Establish thought leadership and a presence.
- Keep a vendor ‘in consideration’ and ‘top of mind’ during a long sales cycle.
- Provide the tools to generate a cost benefit analysis.
- Generate interest and leads.
- Breed a sense of trust in order to reduce risk in making a decision.
- Get on the approved vendor list before a decision is needed.
- Facilitate peer recommendations to reduce risk; peers are often the first resource people turn to when researching.
- Leverage sales for referrals in addition to closing sales.
- Establish credibility and thought leadership to garner the ‘wisdom of the crowd.’
While white papers are read and used by a large number buyers (and committees) the form factor remains the old document-based ‘paper’ in this day of tweets, Diggs, sharing and comments.
Borrowing from the success of ‘social media news rooms’ this [post] describes a new delivery model for this valuable content. Rather than just producing a PDF, the social media white paper consists of a variety of elements that facilitate content distribution and sharing of information. From quotes to slides to a printable version, reports are presented in a variety of forms that make it most useful to the audience.
White Room
Rather than a listing of PDF files behind a registration page, the concept creates a diverse set of objects that readers can use to meet their needs. To accomplish this; a new section [should] be added to a firm’s website tentatively called the ‘white room’ – a combination of the white paper and news room. To provide control of the functionality, content, and track distribution the white room is a separate part of a web site that contains a variety of sections. Using the standard sections of NewsCactus or PitchEngine as a guide it could take the form of:
- Home: an introductory page for the section. Similar to many blogs, it contains a synopsis and listing of recent contents.
- Overview: Provides a place to discuss what the section is about (optional)
- White Papers: Listing of white papers with links to the actual page. Each page is designed to be found as part of inbound marketing strategies.
- Highlights: Links to other events related to white papers, e.g. presentations, or speeches.
- In the News: Listing of mentions of the firm as thought leader.
- Multimedia: useful objects to associate with the white paper.
- Company Kits: Fact sheets for company, leaders, and products.
Paper Chunks
The Internet has changed how we read and consume content [see the "Twitter Paradox"]. To facilitate consumption and spreading of information the following should be supplied.
- Content written in form that can be scanned. Use of bullets and short sentences, paragraphs required in this day and age of Internet-reading.
- Sub-heads written in the form of tweets that can then be used with url-shorteners to deep link and drive traffic.
- Plain text (not Word) and PDF versions of full white paper and key paragraphs.
- Audio version of paper (mp3 format).
- Three to four specific recommendations or points that can be forwarded quickly. Written for retweeting.
- Links to outside, relevant resources within the copy. No more than one link per 150-200 words.
- A description, synopsis of the piece in 30-50 word that can be emailed to others like the reader's boss.
- A list of key words associated with the piece; used to develop content to facilitate search traffic.
- Two or more multi-media objects – pictures, video, or audio interviews.
- Charts in clear template form for both PowerPoint and Keynote as well as on slide share – with speaker’s notes.
- Spreadsheets if providing calculation tools.
- Full contact information for key resources: all relevant channels.
- Links to social bookmark and network sites.
- Simple registration – accept LinkedIn, Facebook and twitter profiles.
Business Model
I have some ideas here too....
Designer Degrees
Where is education headed?
State-funded education continues to get hammered as budgets are cut. Colleges and universities will be "eating their seed corn" or dipping into the "rainy day" funds. And it's a vicious circle - laying off adjunct professors, which were the solution to the last budget crunch, means limiting enrollment caps, which means people can't get in, they can't take what they need, and they can't get out on time. High unemployment means both more students and less tax revenue. Education is being squeezed like a week-old lime; there's nothing left to give.
Kaplan (client), with its reverse articulation agreements with community colleges, is on the right track for some of the structural problems of education.
From a product perspective it might be time for a new marketing strategy: Designer Degrees
The only higher education degrees that are in demand, have students paying rack rates, don't have huge infrastructure costs and be created quickly based on contemporary needs are the "Master's". The once and former mark of failure or esoteric job requirements, i.e. flunked out of a PhD program or were in Social Work, these are now becoming products in their own right. In the past we’ve worked on general Master’s degrees like MBAs. Today we’re seeing the rise of specialist degrees. Recent articles in both the Wall Street Journal and NYT give credence to this trend and often stress the technical or specialist skills that they provide.
All categories fragment. The time appears to be ripe based on economics and market needs for this pattern to accelerate in the post-graduate world. The marketing challenge is learning how to develop and market tightly-focused programs.
From the beat of the wings of a butterfly comes the Master's in Jurisprudence in HealthCare (another client) targeted to hospital compliance professionals.
State-funded education continues to get hammered as budgets are cut. Colleges and universities will be "eating their seed corn" or dipping into the "rainy day" funds. And it's a vicious circle - laying off adjunct professors, which were the solution to the last budget crunch, means limiting enrollment caps, which means people can't get in, they can't take what they need, and they can't get out on time. High unemployment means both more students and less tax revenue. Education is being squeezed like a week-old lime; there's nothing left to give.
Kaplan (client), with its reverse articulation agreements with community colleges, is on the right track for some of the structural problems of education.
From a product perspective it might be time for a new marketing strategy: Designer Degrees
The only higher education degrees that are in demand, have students paying rack rates, don't have huge infrastructure costs and be created quickly based on contemporary needs are the "Master's". The once and former mark of failure or esoteric job requirements, i.e. flunked out of a PhD program or were in Social Work, these are now becoming products in their own right. In the past we’ve worked on general Master’s degrees like MBAs. Today we’re seeing the rise of specialist degrees. Recent articles in both the Wall Street Journal and NYT give credence to this trend and often stress the technical or specialist skills that they provide.
All categories fragment. The time appears to be ripe based on economics and market needs for this pattern to accelerate in the post-graduate world. The marketing challenge is learning how to develop and market tightly-focused programs.
From the
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Dear CEO: How to use social media
What would I tell a CEO?
We often talk about social media at the tactical level rather than strategic. So for a recent viewpoint in Utah CEO magazine I tried to relate social media to the business processes where communication was vital: Reputation, Customer Service and Establishing a Brand.
But first I had to come up with a definition that was grounded in business rather than technology. And that actually meant I needed to define marketing as well.
Here's what I came up with:
We often talk about social media at the tactical level rather than strategic. So for a recent viewpoint in Utah CEO magazine I tried to relate social media to the business processes where communication was vital: Reputation, Customer Service and Establishing a Brand.
But first I had to come up with a definition that was grounded in business rather than technology. And that actually meant I needed to define marketing as well.
Here's what I came up with:
- Marketing is the alignment of your company’s solutions with a defined set of needs to everyone’s mutual benefit. While it may incorporate advertising and promotion, those are not the primary functions of the marketing team — it is making sure that your product is in demand.
- Social media are the vehicles that leverage human interaction to convey a message. Of particular interest to marketers are recommendations and complaints.
Monday, December 28, 2009
The Catch-22 of Education Marketing
How do we raise the value of a degree?
The successful marketing of education relies on understanding the interplay of three different elements.
The sweet spot occurs at the intersection of these three Ps. Yet a Catch-22 exists in the development of an educational institution: The best employers won't target a school unless it has the best job applicants and the best college candidates won't consider a school if the best employers don't target graduates.
The glue is the "Program" - the skills, knowledge and experiences gained along the way to a degree. Balancing what students want and what employers need (as well as what researchers pursue) is the ultimate, long-term job of a marketer.
The successful marketing of education relies on understanding the interplay of three different elements.
- Prospect - the quality(ies) of the applicant pool entering the school
- Program - the curriculum, both classroom and the intangibles
- Placement - the odds of getting that dream job
The sweet spot occurs at the intersection of these three Ps. Yet a Catch-22 exists in the development of an educational institution: The best employers won't target a school unless it has the best job applicants and the best college candidates won't consider a school if the best employers don't target graduates.The glue is the "Program" - the skills, knowledge and experiences gained along the way to a degree. Balancing what students want and what employers need (as well as what researchers pursue) is the ultimate, long-term job of a marketer.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
The 7 Minute Gift
What can we provide each other this season?
Yesterday I had the opportunity to participate in a unique event sponsored by the Community Foundation of Utah - a speed mentoring session.
For two hours a variety on non-profits met with entrepreneurs to discuss their needs in a specific area - networking, strategy, fund raising, etc. I was at the marketing table and talked to groups ranging from community gardens to art centers to national volunteer organizations about how better to position themselves in the minds of constituents.
The idea for the event grew out of the notions that a) entrepreneurs and non-profits have a lot in common, i.e. they're always bootstrapping something, b) non-profits need the experiences, connections and insights that entrepreneurs have and c) entrepreneurs as a group are extremely philanthropic by nature. So adapting the structure of speed dating and speed pitching 50+ non-profits met with 50+ entrepreneurs in a series of 7 minute sessions. This was followed by a panel discussion on corporate social responsibility.
In order to make this successful, and by all accounts both groups were more than pleased - they were satisfied and happy, the non-profits were individually coached ahead of time on preparing their pitch. They knew what to say and ask their questions. As mentors we were given a brief abstract on what each organization did and what their need was. It was amazing how much 'work' could be accomplished in those 7 minutes.
As professionals we're usually busy looking for new clients or serving our existing ones. As an employee of an ad agency most of these groups would have never crossed my path because our market is different than where they sit today (euphemism "for they couldn't afford our services.")
The chance to share some thoughts, ask some questions, and hopefully provide some guidance with those who need it most was personally very satisfying. Certainly a better professional gift than the office 'white elephant.' And all it cost me was a morning.
To Fraser Nelson and all the rest that put on this wonderful event - I thank you.
Yesterday I had the opportunity to participate in a unique event sponsored by the Community Foundation of Utah - a speed mentoring session.
For two hours a variety on non-profits met with entrepreneurs to discuss their needs in a specific area - networking, strategy, fund raising, etc. I was at the marketing table and talked to groups ranging from community gardens to art centers to national volunteer organizations about how better to position themselves in the minds of constituents.
The idea for the event grew out of the notions that a) entrepreneurs and non-profits have a lot in common, i.e. they're always bootstrapping something, b) non-profits need the experiences, connections and insights that entrepreneurs have and c) entrepreneurs as a group are extremely philanthropic by nature. So adapting the structure of speed dating and speed pitching 50+ non-profits met with 50+ entrepreneurs in a series of 7 minute sessions. This was followed by a panel discussion on corporate social responsibility.
In order to make this successful, and by all accounts both groups were more than pleased - they were satisfied and happy, the non-profits were individually coached ahead of time on preparing their pitch. They knew what to say and ask their questions. As mentors we were given a brief abstract on what each organization did and what their need was. It was amazing how much 'work' could be accomplished in those 7 minutes.
As professionals we're usually busy looking for new clients or serving our existing ones. As an employee of an ad agency most of these groups would have never crossed my path because our market is different than where they sit today (euphemism "for they couldn't afford our services.")
The chance to share some thoughts, ask some questions, and hopefully provide some guidance with those who need it most was personally very satisfying. Certainly a better professional gift than the office 'white elephant.' And all it cost me was a morning.
To Fraser Nelson and all the rest that put on this wonderful event - I thank you.
Friday, December 11, 2009
Strategy vs. Tactics
What's the difference?
strategy: answering why an objective will be met
tactic: answering how an objective will met met
strategy: answering why an objective will be met
tactic: answering how an objective will met met
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Rights, Rituals, and Revenue
Who doesn't want culture to evolve?
The branding folks over at Black Coffee posted the "Remix Manifesto" a great documentary on sampling and intellectual property in the music/movie industry. At the core is the notion that while culture evolves by creating mashups and new rituals the old guard wants to prolong the status quo.
Aren't Orange County Choppers and Girl Talk doing the same thing? They both remix samples of existing products to extend our sense of culture with new icons. However, one gets a TV show and the other potentially gets sued. What's the difference?
Money flow.
It appears that the amount of fighting the incumbents do is directly related to their business model. Any industry whose revenue stream is based on residuals will fight anyone who changes what was originally produced. This explains the musvie industry's protracted fight for digital rights management as well as big pharma's support for extended patent protection. The mantra is simple: "Protect our revenue stream." This is why we can't sing Happy Birthday without paying royalties; but does allow us to take a Trek bike and make a single-speed.
Marketing sits at the intersection (in the cross-hairs) of cultural evolution. Our job is to satisfy two distinct masters. On the hand the consumer needs a solution that is culturally relevant. On the other is the business objective of earning as much from an investment over as long a time as possible. When these two objectives can't be resolved equitably, as with digital entertainment, culture goes underground and emerges again at the fringe where new rituals, and possibly business models, emerge.
While the law is always on the side of money; time is always on the side of culture.
The branding folks over at Black Coffee posted the "Remix Manifesto" a great documentary on sampling and intellectual property in the music/movie industry. At the core is the notion that while culture evolves by creating mashups and new rituals the old guard wants to prolong the status quo.
Aren't Orange County Choppers and Girl Talk doing the same thing? They both remix samples of existing products to extend our sense of culture with new icons. However, one gets a TV show and the other potentially gets sued. What's the difference?
Money flow.
It appears that the amount of fighting the incumbents do is directly related to their business model. Any industry whose revenue stream is based on residuals will fight anyone who changes what was originally produced. This explains the musvie industry's protracted fight for digital rights management as well as big pharma's support for extended patent protection. The mantra is simple: "Protect our revenue stream." This is why we can't sing Happy Birthday without paying royalties; but does allow us to take a Trek bike and make a single-speed.
Marketing sits at the intersection (in the cross-hairs) of cultural evolution. Our job is to satisfy two distinct masters. On the hand the consumer needs a solution that is culturally relevant. On the other is the business objective of earning as much from an investment over as long a time as possible. When these two objectives can't be resolved equitably, as with digital entertainment, culture goes underground and emerges again at the fringe where new rituals, and possibly business models, emerge.
While the law is always on the side of money; time is always on the side of culture.
Friday, October 23, 2009
Prisoners of Paradigms
Why is it so hard to change?
Just finished 'Management Rewired' by Charles Jacobs. This was the third book I've read recently on answering the question: Just how do we make decisions? This one focuses on management and leadership while Buyology and How We Decide led me to think about the "Biology of Branding".
It seems that rebranding, organizational change, and innovation are three sides of the same coin. We want people to see them as new and adapt them. We explain the logic using rational arguments and expect people to fall in line. It rarely works that way leading to the question: Why are they so hard?
They are all prisoners of paradigms.
The brain processes all inputs requiring each of us to filter the possibilities into a short list of things we need to pay attention to. We do that by forming expectations based on experience. Since we all have different experiences and each day brings new data to our mind, we need some tool to look at the big picture. It turns out that it is emotion or those parts of the brain associated with experiences and feelings that guide our course of action. These in turn create reinforced pathways - paradigms if you will - that create shortcuts to decisions and actions.
Without emotions I was never, ever be able to decide between Nikon and a Cannon based solely on a checklist of features because there is no referee. In the end, I chose Nikon because of I wanted one since high school. The desire to take emotions out of the RFP process, performance reviews, and 'balanced score cards' also explains why they rarely produce the desired results.
The implication is that there is not one universal cause and effect as in the physical world and this means:
Just finished 'Management Rewired' by Charles Jacobs. This was the third book I've read recently on answering the question: Just how do we make decisions? This one focuses on management and leadership while Buyology and How We Decide led me to think about the "Biology of Branding".
It seems that rebranding, organizational change, and innovation are three sides of the same coin. We want people to see them as new and adapt them. We explain the logic using rational arguments and expect people to fall in line. It rarely works that way leading to the question: Why are they so hard?
They are all prisoners of paradigms.
The brain processes all inputs requiring each of us to filter the possibilities into a short list of things we need to pay attention to. We do that by forming expectations based on experience. Since we all have different experiences and each day brings new data to our mind, we need some tool to look at the big picture. It turns out that it is emotion or those parts of the brain associated with experiences and feelings that guide our course of action. These in turn create reinforced pathways - paradigms if you will - that create shortcuts to decisions and actions.
Without emotions I was never, ever be able to decide between Nikon and a Cannon based solely on a checklist of features because there is no referee. In the end, I chose Nikon because of I wanted one since high school. The desire to take emotions out of the RFP process, performance reviews, and 'balanced score cards' also explains why they rarely produce the desired results.
The implication is that there is not one universal cause and effect as in the physical world and this means:
- Newton's laws don't apply to people; so all those feeds and speeds brochures telling prospects why our product is better don't really help make the decision - they do help defend the decision. It also means pay for performance won't work either.
- There are multiple versions of the rational truth; while features and advantages maybe generalized benefits can not - they're personal. This is good for innovating at the fringe where people are actively seeking new solutions.
- Socrates was right and Aristotle was wrong; questioning and participative is a much better strategy than top down ordering. Maybe SoMed means Socratic Media?
- Rebranding means creating a new pigeon hole in the mind for your company while simultaneously closing the old one down. Starting with "We want to rebrand, but don't want to piss off our core." will pretty much guarantee failure.
- Organizational change means creating a new set of expected behaviors while eradicating the ones that got you to the point where you need change. Try adapting Henry V's style rather than Patton's when rallying the team.
- Innovation means creating a new solution to an old problem (or at least a different way of satisfying a need.) Getting people to realize it doesn't have to be a certain way means severing pathways honed over time.
- Create cognitive dissonance - force the brain to say, "wait a minute this isn't what I expected." Make it process the information again (and again and again). We must be taught that coins have three sides, not two.
- Use an experience or physical act to demonstrate that things are different. A new logo is part of this as is moving the executive offices from the top floor to the main floor or even a new pricing model. (But by all means don't stop - these are simply symbols.)
- Paint a vision using a story. Brands, organizations, and innovations all succeed when surrounded by a culture formed by telling stories.
Friday, October 09, 2009
Social Media is a Red Bike
Just what is social media?
To me it is a red bike, like my new cruiser.
The term isn't social-media or socialmedia; each would refer to mean a single concept. But rather, it is an adjective describing a noun.
Social media is a special type of media, just as my cruiser is a specific type of bike. As such we should look at the two terms distinctly as David Cushman described earlier in a post: Social + Media = Change. What does each mean? What does the combination mean?
Media, like bike, is a broad term covering a wide range of types. What is common is that all bikes and media do the same thing - they are vehicles for carrying something. Bikes carry people; media carry messages. It's only when we throw an adjective in front of bike or media do things get really interesting. This is when segments, skills, and best practices emerge.
I don't ride my road bike the same way or for the same reason as the red bike. The road bike is used for long, solo rides - think of mileage or speed as media tonnage or reach. The red bike is for the neighborhood where meet and greet is the objective - it's a conversation starter; it's social. The purpose, and thus tools, are very different.
So putting the concepts together:
To me it is a red bike, like my new cruiser.
The term isn't social-media or socialmedia; each would refer to mean a single concept. But rather, it is an adjective describing a noun.Social media is a special type of media, just as my cruiser is a specific type of bike. As such we should look at the two terms distinctly as David Cushman described earlier in a post: Social + Media = Change. What does each mean? What does the combination mean?
Media, like bike, is a broad term covering a wide range of types. What is common is that all bikes and media do the same thing - they are vehicles for carrying something. Bikes carry people; media carry messages. It's only when we throw an adjective in front of bike or media do things get really interesting. This is when segments, skills, and best practices emerge.
I don't ride my road bike the same way or for the same reason as the red bike. The road bike is used for long, solo rides - think of mileage or speed as media tonnage or reach. The red bike is for the neighborhood where meet and greet is the objective - it's a conversation starter; it's social. The purpose, and thus tools, are very different.
So putting the concepts together:
- Social Media: utilizing human interactions to convey a message
Friday, September 18, 2009
When Designers Buy Analysts
What is an Adoniture?
The above looks like a lot like embedding analytics into Content Distribution and it implies that the decision about what creative to use will be made AFTER consumers see it/use it.
The big news this week in these parts was the acquisition of Omniture, the web-analytics company, by Adobe, the content creation company for $1.8 billion.
Here's the picture being used to explain the new beast - delivery and engagement are optimized/analyzed.
The above looks like a lot like embedding analytics into Content Distribution and it implies that the decision about what creative to use will be made AFTER consumers see it/use it.
At first glance this might seem just a bit odd: This would be like our Creative Director hiring me.
Is this a good thing?
On the rational and paper side of things:
- both companies need a new way to grow; analytics and designing are mature markets.
- both needed a broader portfolio to compete with the likes of IBM's 4,000 strong analytic consultancy
- Omniture's new target market - the CMO - fits with Adobe's existing market - the creative
- both companies love agencies (but for different reasons)
- the idea of convergence of design and analytics is attractive
Why might this not be such a good idea?
On the human side of things:
- radically different cultures emerge when selling a $100,000 product and a $1,000 product; not to mention UT and CA
- clearly not a merger, but rather one group to subsume the other - expect an exodus of people as soon as options vest
- the process of creating content will change because the objective is different;
- this model suggests that 10x the versions will be requested to find what works; it will become mechanistic
On the business side:
- the companies don't sell to the same person or thru the same buying process
- optimizing web traffic, user flows and ecommerce aren't usually the art director's job.
- it is damn near impossible for an enterprise software company (Omniture) to go down market into the SMB world
- retrofitting an old-school approach to web analytics to the nuances of content distribution will be very hard
- page views (the guts of Omniture's pricing model) aren't relevant in a chunked or engaging world
- still some missing pieces, but nothing another acquisition couldn't resolve, e.g. ad server or offline media
On the marketing side:
- it is now very confusing just what an 'Adoniture' is; people will not combine two existing pigeon holes in their brain
- in the age of open source, APIs, and bits it is hard to see how this could be unique with a significant barrier to entry.
- the markets (Fortune 100 vs. creative shops) cannot be rationalized into one; hard to see new/under-served consumers
I like the idea. The question on our white boards for education and B2B clients: How can we a track a chunk of content thru social media sharing?
Friday, August 21, 2009
The Biology of Branding
How does branding really work?
Mark Gallagher over at BlackCoffee recently launched a site asking us to answer the simple question: What is a brand?
This, and a couple of recent books I've read, got me thinking about the physiology behind 'branding'. Just what happens inside our thick skulls?
We know sex, drugs and rock and roll work. But how? The simple answer is they stimulate the release of dopamine - the ultimate pleasure drug. When faced with a choice of more dopamine or food & water, rats chose the former - and they die of thirst in a happy stupor.
Dopamine isn't just a drug, it is related to specific neurons and that means it spreads through the brain like blood through capillaries. Thus, dopamine is involved in the processing of not only pleasant things but balances negative/risky propositions and purely rational thought. Ever wonder why you argue with yourself about a purchase: "It's expensive and I'm not sure versus, but what they hell I like it?" That's the insula battling the nucleus accumbens.
Most importantly - these neurons learn to associate external stimuli with pleasure. The age-old Pavlovian stimulus-reward mechanism can now be mapped out in the brain. This means that brand cues and rituals (and to a degree consistent messaging) as well as delivering on one promise are so important to branding. Deliver inconsistent products or confuse people with varying messages and the dopamine receptors learn to hedge their bets. As uncertainty of the outcome creeps into our experience the prediction error gets too big and the dopamine turns off. If the outcome is too negative the result may be avoidance altogether.
It seems the brain doesn't like to be fooled.
And because we're social, we'll tell others to avoid the pain we've learned. Not only that, we'll avoid pleasure if it means preventing pain for others. Monkeys will choose to not get treats if it means another monkey won't be shocked.
We decide emotionally and defend rationally.
It is not a case of being 'rational' or 'economic' that makes us capable of making good decisions. It turns out that it is emotions that allow us to make decisions. Without knowing how we or others will feel we are simply incapable of making a decision. Numerous studies have shown that without the emotional part of the brain, we are incapable of making even the simplest decisions. The 'ah ha' moment, "it just felt right" and "it is the right thing to do" all come long before we can explain why that it is so. It takes time to process experiences into a logical explanation.
To a large degree expertise is simply knowing without rationally exploring every option. From football quarterbacks to soap opera directors to fighter pilots - they cannot always explain why they picked a given receiver, blocked a scene one way or shot at one radar blip versus another. In these scenarios there is simply no time to act rational and process all the options; through repetition and particularly the review of mistakes/failure the brain becomes wired to instantly assess and respond. "I knew he was going to be open" is not the result of a rational review of all the options; it is the result of dopamine out weighing the risk.
For many brands facts just get in the way. They don't really help make a decision but do justify it. Ever bought a digital camera? They are way too many things to consider from CMOS to megapixels to burst speed to weight to effective focal length to memory type. The comparison charts give us the ammunition to defend a decision. In the end it will be simple - it feels right in my hand or I always wanted a Nikon. If the prefrontal cortex doesn't get some feedback from dopamine it will be in an endless loop of rationalizing this versus that. People are often incapable of making decisions based on facts alone.
Ever wonder why you jump up when your team scores on TV? It certainly isn't a rational thing to do - we're not there and we're not even participating. So why do we feel these emotions? We have mirror neurons. These brain cells fire when we see others experience something - both positive and negative. This is what makes us social, empathetic and moral. It also provides insights into why testimonials and celebrity endorsements work. "They're like me and I can relate."
It seems then that biology teaches us that branding comes down to:
Mark Gallagher over at BlackCoffee recently launched a site asking us to answer the simple question: What is a brand?
This, and a couple of recent books I've read, got me thinking about the physiology behind 'branding'. Just what happens inside our thick skulls?
We know sex, drugs and rock and roll work. But how? The simple answer is they stimulate the release of dopamine - the ultimate pleasure drug. When faced with a choice of more dopamine or food & water, rats chose the former - and they die of thirst in a happy stupor.
Dopamine isn't just a drug, it is related to specific neurons and that means it spreads through the brain like blood through capillaries. Thus, dopamine is involved in the processing of not only pleasant things but balances negative/risky propositions and purely rational thought. Ever wonder why you argue with yourself about a purchase: "It's expensive and I'm not sure versus, but what they hell I like it?" That's the insula battling the nucleus accumbens.
Most importantly - these neurons learn to associate external stimuli with pleasure. The age-old Pavlovian stimulus-reward mechanism can now be mapped out in the brain. This means that brand cues and rituals (and to a degree consistent messaging) as well as delivering on one promise are so important to branding. Deliver inconsistent products or confuse people with varying messages and the dopamine receptors learn to hedge their bets. As uncertainty of the outcome creeps into our experience the prediction error gets too big and the dopamine turns off. If the outcome is too negative the result may be avoidance altogether.
It seems the brain doesn't like to be fooled.
And because we're social, we'll tell others to avoid the pain we've learned. Not only that, we'll avoid pleasure if it means preventing pain for others. Monkeys will choose to not get treats if it means another monkey won't be shocked.
We decide emotionally and defend rationally.
It is not a case of being 'rational' or 'economic' that makes us capable of making good decisions. It turns out that it is emotions that allow us to make decisions. Without knowing how we or others will feel we are simply incapable of making a decision. Numerous studies have shown that without the emotional part of the brain, we are incapable of making even the simplest decisions. The 'ah ha' moment, "it just felt right" and "it is the right thing to do" all come long before we can explain why that it is so. It takes time to process experiences into a logical explanation.
To a large degree expertise is simply knowing without rationally exploring every option. From football quarterbacks to soap opera directors to fighter pilots - they cannot always explain why they picked a given receiver, blocked a scene one way or shot at one radar blip versus another. In these scenarios there is simply no time to act rational and process all the options; through repetition and particularly the review of mistakes/failure the brain becomes wired to instantly assess and respond. "I knew he was going to be open" is not the result of a rational review of all the options; it is the result of dopamine out weighing the risk.
For many brands facts just get in the way. They don't really help make a decision but do justify it. Ever bought a digital camera? They are way too many things to consider from CMOS to megapixels to burst speed to weight to effective focal length to memory type. The comparison charts give us the ammunition to defend a decision. In the end it will be simple - it feels right in my hand or I always wanted a Nikon. If the prefrontal cortex doesn't get some feedback from dopamine it will be in an endless loop of rationalizing this versus that. People are often incapable of making decisions based on facts alone.
Ever wonder why you jump up when your team scores on TV? It certainly isn't a rational thing to do - we're not there and we're not even participating. So why do we feel these emotions? We have mirror neurons. These brain cells fire when we see others experience something - both positive and negative. This is what makes us social, empathetic and moral. It also provides insights into why testimonials and celebrity endorsements work. "They're like me and I can relate."
It seems then that biology teaches us that branding comes down to:
1. Understand the pleasure received from a product
2. Capture that pleasure in a set of cues or messages (this is where segmentation plays a huge role)
3. Reinforce and don't deviate
The books referenced are:
The books referenced are:
"How We Decide" by Jonah Lehrer
"Buyology" by Martin Lindstrom
Friday, August 14, 2009
Fragmentation of Search
Where is all this merger and acquisition going?
As products and companies are acquired or dropped one thing is for certain: What used to be one category will splinter, as all categories do in time. For search it used to be easy - it was just 'search'. But now we're seeing the evolution of two kinds of search:
Commercial Search: the paid activity to redirect people to find (buy) something. In this world the travel agent model of Google is hard to beat. Ad Words, Ad Sense and other link-based routings work just finds.
Recommendation Search: the opinions of others (those we know, trust, or just relate to) represents a completely new type of search and underlying business model. The Facebook, FriendFeed, Twitter and LinkedIn models fit better in this world. In time, this is likely to fragment into personal and professional recommendations.
So, its not so much a question of 'who will win?' but what needs of ours do they best support.
As products and companies are acquired or dropped one thing is for certain: What used to be one category will splinter, as all categories do in time. For search it used to be easy - it was just 'search'. But now we're seeing the evolution of two kinds of search:
Commercial Search: the paid activity to redirect people to find (buy) something. In this world the travel agent model of Google is hard to beat. Ad Words, Ad Sense and other link-based routings work just finds.
Recommendation Search: the opinions of others (those we know, trust, or just relate to) represents a completely new type of search and underlying business model. The Facebook, FriendFeed, Twitter and LinkedIn models fit better in this world. In time, this is likely to fragment into personal and professional recommendations.
So, its not so much a question of 'who will win?' but what needs of ours do they best support.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
