Creative Inconvenience

In a recent episode of Showtime’s “Homeland” the teenage son of a potential presidential candidate is driving with his girlfriend, and in trying to impress her attempts to lose their secret service escort. This in turn leads the couple into a fatal hit and run with a pedestrian. The story plays out where the guilt ridden couple ultimately confess the accident to their parents, at which point a moral dilemma ensues.

Do the presidential parents act on what is morally right and report the incident, thus risking the presidential bid, or do they use their power to suppress any investigation? In this fictitious scenario the issue’s morality lost to its ability to restrict personal gain, and as such the event went unreported.

This dramatized example of morality of convenience, where ideals are sacrificed for gain, has roots in reality and takes on different shapes, some that lay outside of black & white moral purity.

For instance we love the entrepreneur - the creative rebel who by the very act of their non-conformity changes social behavior patterns and the standard approach to business. However the inconvenient truth is that most business ventures fail. So even as we admire innovative success and celebrate the ideals behind the success, we also tend to ignore the multitude of failures that surround those successes and gloss over the price of achieving them.

Creative innovation requires taking risks, accepting failure, rejecting convention and exploring unproven methods. Despite the fact that Corporate America has created a cottage industry on promoting the ideas of innovation and creativity, the fact is most are structured to stifle innovation. Like Homeland’s hit and run casualty who fell victim to the morality of convenience, so is corporate innovation the victim of creative inconvenience.

The 4 Dynamics Of Stifled Innovation

1. Cultural Homogeneity:

Organizations typically recruit employees that best fit into their existing culture. This creates a self perpetuating cycle where any deviation from that culture tends to be met with dissatisfaction and thus gets weeded out.

Social experiments have additionally shown that when faced with a majority point of view, individuals tend to adhere to that viewpoint, even if it goes against a believed truth. This behavioral conformity is particularly prevalent where departures from the social norm negatively impact status - such as one’s ability to get promoted.  

The result - homogenized thought with a singular voice in support of the existing order.

2. Innovation Inefficiency

In The Medici Effect Frans Johansson writes that in any given field 10% of the creators are responsible for 50% of the contributions - Picasso created 20,000 pieces of art, Thomas Edison filed a record 1,039 patents  and Richard Branson started 250 companies.

The point is that successful innovation is a numbers game of high output for minimal success with high reward. Unfortunately most companies are structured to minimize costs through operational efficiencies and to deliver consistent returns, not to absorb the loss of excess capacity in search of a home run.

3. Decision Incentives

Directly resulting from the above points, in most corporations it is more dangerous to make a bold, potentially high return decision and fail than it is to make a consensus decision and fail. As a result people tend to model their decisions to satisfy those who will be evaluating them instead of making choices based on their potential to deliver.

4. Risk Aversion Biology

Since the hunter gatherer days when unnecessary risk could be fatal, humans are biologically wired to minimize risk. Social experiments have again proven this whereby giving people a choice between a larger, less certain reward and a smaller more certain one people will generally choose the more certain, lower payout. Innovation requires risk and risk taking is not in our DNA.

Achieving innovation and creativity in the corporate sense are clearly not impossible since they happen often enough. However the next time you attempt to push creative boundaries realize that despite what people say they may not be ready to pay the price for innovation, and your ability to bridge that price gap may ultimately determine the fate of your idea.

Wine Box Economics

Charles Antin is a writer and wine enthusiast who attempted to barter a $43 box wine for a single bottle worth at least ten times the price. The process was designed to tell an interesting story and maybe learn if consumers valued wine differently than the merchants who set the prices. In reality it illuminated a core principle of marketing - the true definition of value.

Swap 1: $43 becomes $109
Box wine is typically perceived to be of inferior quality, which lends itself to a tough trade. Mr. Antin realized to start he needed a good product, which in fact does exist in a box wine. More so, he needed a unique selling point to help a buyer get over this perception of box wine inferiority.

Box wine is equivalent in volume to four standard bottles, however the 3-liter box format has a much smaller carbon footprint. Mr. Antin had a Californian friend for whom he figured this sustainable benefit might appeal. Furthermore, this friend was an avid cook who regularly held large dinner parties for which 3-liters of wine would be useful.

Trade 1 complete - A $43 box wine for $109 in four bottles of off-the-grid, artisanally made wines.

Swap 2: $109 becomes $140
The next challenge was to trade four interesting bottles of artisanally made wine that no one has ever heard of. Again Mr. Antin mused who would place value in a wine’s unique story over its brand name? The answer - the wine world’s equivalent to a hipster - a sommelier.

Sommelier’s at good restaurants have already tried everything, including the world’s best wines, so something new with potential excites them. Plus most sommeliers have their own collection, which usually include some pretty good wines they long ago got bored of - perfect trade bait.

Trade 2 complete - $109 in four obscure, artisanal wines for a $140 premier Burgundy.

Swap 3: $140 becomes $245
Trading a high quality wine from a top producer in one of the world’s most prized wine regions seemed a simple task. However, Mr. Antin quickly realized that his attempts at a bottle-for-bottle swap wouldn’t work. In his own words, “It was like my fifth grade friend who tried to trade me his raisins for my Fruit Roll-Up based on the premise that they are both dried fruit.”

In a bottle-for-bottle swap value becomes more of a 1:1 comparison highly predicated on price. People were at most willing to swap for a bottle of equal cost, but wouldn’t knowingly swap a bottle of greater cost for one of less. The conversation needed to return to value, not price.

To do so Mr. Antin again sought to trade one bottle for multiple bottles. He knew someone with a large quantity of a single wine who found value in trading extra capacity for something different.

Trade 3 complete - A $109 premier Burgundy for $245 in five lesser bottles of Burgundy

Swap 4: $245 becomes $290
For the five lesser Burgundies Mr. Antin leveraged the wines’ sense of exclusivity, since they could only be purchased through a charity auction that the vineyard hosts annually in France.

Mr. Antin looked for someone who had attended the vineyard’s charity auction and catered to their sense of nostalgia and appreciation for the event’s history.

Trade 4 complete - $245 in five bottles of Burgundy for a $290 Burgundy Magnum.

Swap 5: $290 becomes $520
For the next swap Mr. Antin found a Burgundy lover - someone who valued the uniquely delicate style of Burgundy wines over non-Burgundy wines. He then leveraged that style preference to trade for four combined higher priced bottles of full bodied wines.

Trade 5 complete - $290 Burgundy Magnum for $520 in four bottles of Rhone reds.

Final Swap: $520 becomes $600
For his final swap Mr. Antin used data. The four bottles of Rhone had all received scores of 90 or higher from an acclaimed wine reviewer. Mr. Antin took these to a wine merchant friend and offered them for a bottle of extra stock that didn’t appeal to the merchant’s client base.

Mission complete - $520 in four Rhone reds for a $600 Grand Cru White Burgundy

Knowing The Price Of Everything And The Value Of Nothing
How does a $43 box of decent wine become $600 of elite wine from a renowned producer? By focusing on value over price.

In each instance the recipient of Mr. Antin’s swap may not have received an equal dollar value to what they gave, but they were satisfied because what they received served a personal need or desire that existed outside of price.

Mr. Antin conveyed that value by understanding the unique benefits of his products and positioning them in a way that appealed to the emotional sensibilities of his buyers. The one time he strayed from that approach he got nowhere, because when a proposition is based on price value alone people will always look for a deal.

Brands provide value that appeal to both emotional and physical sensibilities. Products only provide physical benefits that can more easily be valued by price. Build brands based on total value, don’t sell products based on price value.

Whistle Wisdom Simplicity

There is a remote Australian aboriginal language called Guugu Yimithirr that doesn’t use object based coordinates like “left” or “right”, “in front of” or “behind”, to describe direction. Instead, The Guugu Yimithirr use cardinal directions, “north” and “south”, “east” and “west”, in all instances to describe location.

It is not your left hand but your east hand, assuming you are facing south. If you are facing north that same hand now becomes your west hand. It is not hard to see how this complexity can create confusion. Just imagine trying to tell someone in your office where the bathroom is using cardinal directions - “First head due south about 100 feet, then start to turn southwest through the cubicles followed by a hard eastern turn. Continue east until you see the printer in the hallway’s northwest corner...” You get the point.

Even among the initiated this method can be challenging. Take the story about a musicologist named Colin McPhee who, upon recognizing an exceptional talent for dancing in a young boy, but realizing that his village lacked a dance instructor, sent him to stay with a teacher in a different village. Upon checking on the boy’s progress a few days later he was surprised to find him frustrated and unhappy. The reason - being unfamiliar with the coordinates of this new village the boy was unable to follow the cardinal directions for the dance steps when he was told, take “three steps east” or “bend southwest”.

The corporate world is renowned for its jargon, and in marketing especially, we tend to make up words and use overly complicated language when simple English would suffice. I have seen many a brand document that describes a brand’s Essence, Identity and Image all in the same presentation. Is there really a difference or are we just creating complexity?

Similarly, I have worked through processes where the semantics of language were debated for weeks due to the lack of clarity surrounding the meaning of terms. In extreme instances the debate around the language of the process to build a marketing plan overtook the actual building of the plan.

Just look at this now infamous Stephen Colbert “Wheat Thins Sponsortunity” video if you need further proof. So unbelievable was the language used that most people I spoke to about the spoof were dubious that Mr. Colbert was actually reading a genuine “Strategic Brief” provided by Wheat Thins (he was).

How people talk not only changes how they think, but it also impacts the perceptions of the people they are talking to. The late comedian George Carlin best exemplified this in his classic bit about euphemistic language in describing how the WW1 term “Shell Shock” evolved into “Post Traumatic Stress Disorder” by the time of Vietnam. Both say the same thing, one is just a little softer and less direct, and in turn evokes a more subdued response.

To that end, as we replace basic English with more "sophisticated" language we often just create complexity where there should be simplicity. Instead of enhancing communication our language impedes it.

Space Shuttles and Whistles
Richard Feynman was widely considered the greatest physi­cist since Einstein and he had a great disdain for verbiage that confused clarity of thought. In 1986 he was appointed to the investigating committee for the space shuttle Challenger disaster. In this capacity while working with a group of engineers who were showing him a space shuttle that exhibited a “high-frequency vibration” problem, the engineers kept, in Mr. Freyman’s words, “referring to the problem by some complicated name - a pressure induced vorticity oscillatory wa-wa or something.”

After considerable discussion one of the greatest scientific minds of the twentieth century sat confused by what these engineers were explaining to him until finally Mr. Feynman asked “Oh, you mean a whistle!”

The engineers’ replied, “Yes, it exhibits the characteristics of whistle.”, and from there Mr. Feynman was able to solve the problem instantly.

The point is that if something can’t be simply said then it can’t be simply done. Stay away from jargon and speak simple English whenever possible and there will be less confusion around what needs to be accomplished. Don’t say something is a “pressure induced vorticity oscillatory” when it really is just a whistle.

Short List to Successful Client/Agency Relationships

The Client/Agency relationship is an integral part to developing strong marketing. At its best the relationship is a true partnership built on mutual respect. At its worst it is frustrating and even toxic.

Having worked from both the client and agency perspective, and having managed both wonderful and challenging agencies and clients alike, here is my short list of advice on how to develop a true partnership with your agency/client partners.

To The Agencies

1. Do What Is Right, Not Necessarily What Is Asked

Detailed and flawless execution is the cost of entry. It is easy to find an agency that follows orders, but the agency who has a point of view and who isn’t afraid to challenge directions that don’t make sense is the one I want to work with. I may not always agree, but as long as your reasoning is solid I will respect and value you for your opinion.

2. I Want To Speak To The People Who Are Actually Doing The Work

I don’t know where the absurd notion came from that the creative staff can’t attend a meeting because they need protection from the criticism or differing points of view involved in strategic dialogue. If your only role is to record my feedback and water it down so that it is more easily digested by the people who are really doing the thinking then you are as useful as the mosquito. It is imperative that the people whose thought went into whatever is being discussed actually be at the discussion, not only to get their point of view per point 1 above, but also to troubleshoot any challenges together.

3. Leave Your Puns At The Office

Another thing that I have no tolerance for is a glossy presentation laced with pithy copy and clever puns but completely lacking in strategic thought. Window dressing is easily seen through and doesn’t make you look clever. I don’t want used car salesmen, I want strategic marketers.

4. Take Initiative

If there is a bigger need than what I am specifically asking you to do then solve for it. If you do a good job you will get more business than what was originally in the offering. I once worked with a PR agency that was asked to develop a basic tactical outreach plan. Instead they provided a comprehensive PR strategy because they saw a need for one, and in doing so they got 3X the budget to execute than was originally planned.

To The Clients

1. Don’t Be An A-Hole

This is pretty straight forward, and you assume it would be obvious, harkening back to the golden rule circa kindergarten, yet there are horror stories of hellish clients circling around almost every agency. Look, I am sorry if you weren’t allowed to eat chocolate as a kid and had to take an ugly date to the prom, but that doesn’t mean you have the right, now that you are in a position of faux authority, to exorcise those demons by treating your agency partners like crap. There is a reason why you get a new account lead every six months, it’s because your agency hates you and spends the first half of every internal meeting making fun of you. If you want good work out of your agency then treat them respectfully and they will more likely than not bend over backwards for you.

2. Be Hard But Be Fair

Push your agencies, demand inspired thinking and don’t settle if you aren’t getting what you want, but at the same time be fair and reasonable in your approach. If you are only allowing two days to develop a creative strategy then you have no right to expect the next Old Spice campaign. If you continually beat up your agency about price without compromise on the deliverable then you shouldn’t expect the top people on your business. And if you don’t put any thought, time or effort into the initial brand strategy and creative brief how can you expect your agency to be inspired to do great work?

3. Be Transparent & Inclusive

The more informed your agency is about your business and the more insight they have into why and how the decisions are made the more effective they will be. Don’t beat around the bush, get to the heart of an issue even if it is a difficult one. Your agency will appreciate it, will be better informed to make smart decisions about your business and will have clearer direction to do it with. Get them invested in your business and they will invest in your business.

4. Remove Obstacles

In my mind one of the most important things a client can do for an agency is quickly identify and remove any obstacle in the way of their progress, and often this starts with the client themselves. If you are not getting the work you want out of your agency look internally before you point the finger at them. Is your strategy too broad or unclear so that it is preventing the development of a distinct point of view in your marketing ideas? Are you being lead by tactics before strategy, which is causing things to get forced fit and thus is impairing the expansion of an idea? Do you have “God Syndrome”, and thus are creating a “follow orders only” dynamic. There are many things that can cause work to get stuck in the mud and it is your job to identify and solve for them, and that doesn’t always mean getting a new agency.

Just like any relationship, Client/Agency relationships take work and require communication, respect and mutual understanding, even if you don’t always agree, in order to prosper. This isn’t a comprehensive list, but it should lay a good foundation to build upon.

Why Your Social Media Plan Doesn't Deliver

Many brands enter social media because they feel they have to, so as not to “miss out”. They read about Old Spice’s Mustafa or get forwarded the Double Rainbow meme and have visions of millions of adoring people sharing and talking about their brand for zero dollars invested.

They start a Facebook page or open a Twitter account, quickly realize it is a commitment, and after telling their agencies that they want a viral idea, one of two things typically happens:

1. Through perseverance they stumble along until slowly, they figure it out
2. Upon failing to achieve their viral dreams they say social media is not worth the investment, which they came to realize was more than zero dollars, and thus add to the scrap heap of dormant brand pages that exist in a half-life state of digital carbonite - a permanent echo of aspirations unrealized

Is that overly dramatized? Sure - but it is not entirely unrealistic either. The fact is, Point 2 can be avoided and Point 1 can be optimized by identifying metrics that link back to actual business goals.

Is that oversimplified? Not really - yet I am continually impressed by how few brand marketers think in those terms when it comes to social media.

The reason being is twofold. First, so many agencies falsely claim social media proficiency in order to cash in that it is difficult to get legitimate strategic direction. Second, many marketers erroneously assume that once they have a sufficiently dense following, their message will automatically spread throughout that following, be positively received, and will ultimately result in people falling in love with their brands and buying their products.

Getting “Followers” Is Not The End Goal - It Is Merely A Means Towards One
A recent Digiday article on digital ROI showed that 40% of marketers aren’t measuring social media at all, and for those that do, top metrics include: purchase (67%), time spent (54%), sharing (51%) and likes/followers (less than 33%).

The thing that struck me in this article, other than 40% are not measuring ROI at all, was not so much that these are the wrong metrics, but that these metrics (except for maybe purchase) are actually only part of a solution to broader challenges. However in discussing ROI, marketers often fail to link these metrics back to their business objectives, and are in turn forcing them to stand alone without context for measurement.

Do you need to create greater brand awareness? Is yours a premium priced product in an inelastic commodity category? Are you facing better resourced competitors?  The potential challenges facing brand growth are as endless as they are diverse, but I can definitively say that the end solution to any of these challenges is not to get more Facebook “likes” or Twitter followers.

If your objective is to get 100 or 100 Million followers but you are not tying that back to how it solves for your brand challenges, then you are only looking at half of the puzzle, that is to say, you are not answering the real question of; “Once I have this community, what would I like them to do for me and what will I provide in return for that ask?” The answer to the first part of that question is your objective to measure against and the answer to the latter part is your strategy to achieve it.

Followers, time spent or any of the myriad digital metrics are merely just a means to a greater end, and if you look at them in isolation to that end, you are essentially just staring at Plato’s shadows on the cave’s wall. You have to make your metrics tie.

Why Your Target Consumers Don't Hear You

I am frequently astounded by the regularity of poorly written creative briefs. There are likely multiple reasons for this, not the least of which is prioritizing speed of completion over quality of thought, but one of the most common elements I find to be subpar in a brief is the line typically titled “Target Consumer”.

If you have been in the business for any significant period of time chances are you have seen a brief with a Target Consumer description that looks something like this (I am using a female target for this example but it could just as easily be male):

Target Consumer
25 - 45 yrs old, Female, Upper Income, Upper Educated, with or without kids...

This is usually followed up with some generic “insight” that is supposed to provide depth into what makes this human being tic. You know, something like:

Insight
The challenge of trying to balance family, personal relationships, career and still find “me time” causes her to be time stretched. She is always looking for solutions that help her to balance these multiple pressures. She constantly puts others needs before hers, and is ok with that, but sometimes she just wants time to focus on herself.

The problem is the above example Target Consumer defines three quarters of the Earth. It essentially eliminates the male half of the planet and identifies an “insight” that impacts everyone but infants. Good luck trying to craft a message that will resonate with any subset of that target, let alone the entirety of it.

I think mass market brands find themselves working against these absurdly broad consumer definitions because they are afraid that in crafting programs that speak to the needs of a smaller subset of consumers, they might in turn alienate the consumers outside of that subset, and thus not deliver against the growth goals of the business which, being already highly developed, require widespread consumption to move the needle.

Aiming For the Bullseye
Often within these broad consumer descriptions we see the term “Bullseye Consumer”, which in theory is supposed to identify that smaller consumer subset, but in my experience really only helps to focus the media buy without actually impacting the point of view of the message.   

In thinking of the “Target” and “Bullseye” metaphors to describe the people we want to use our products we should consider that, much like the game of darts, when you aim for a target’s bullseye you often wind up hitting some of the bullseye’s surrounding rings, which in the consumer sense, makes up that broader target definition. Contrarily, when you simply aim to hit any part of the target, you can wind up missing it altogether.

I’ll use the sports category to exemplify that point. The people who make up the majority of Nike’s business are probably the casual athlete or the weekend warrior. However Nike doesn’t design shoes for the 5K run; they design them for marathons, because the casual athlete knows that if the shoe works for a 26 mile run it will most certainly suffice for a 5K. That is also why Nike ads depict elite athletes like Michael Jordan, and not some guy named Doug who plays in an intramural league whenever he can get out of work on time to make a game. In targeting the elite athlete in product, messaging and imagery they deliver a message that resonates with the casual athlete who makes up the majority of their business. The elite athlete is the lifestyle bullseye, but in aiming for it, you wind up hitting the casual athlete who makes up a larger portion of the overall target.

Is there risk in that by using product language and brand imagery that would appeal to a marathon runner you might turn off a casual 5K runner because they might get intimidated or feel like they can’t relate to a marathon runner’s needs - maybe. However, odds are that person probably wouldn’t have become a customer anyway, and I guarantee you that in alternatively trying to appeal to every person who runs, you will instead wind up with a watered down message that appeals to no one. Sometimes you have to be willing to turn some people off to your message in order to effectively speak to the people who will be most receptive to it.