The same people who control your destiny.
Late last year the boxing world lost a legend when Joe Frazier, the first man to defeat Muhammad Ali, died of liver cancer at age 67. Frazier, an Olympic and undisputed world heavyweight champion, did more than beat "The Greatest;" he was instrumental in the creation of brand Ali through their epic trilogy of bouts in the 1970s. And likewise, Ali helped create the brand "Smokin' Joe."
It's indisputable that Ali could "float like a butterfly, sting like a bee," and had a knack for feeding the media's hungers. But neither he nor Joe was "in control" of his brand. The boxing relationships were mutual, not causal. Everyone was in it together, for themselves: the fighters, the fans, the reporters, the promoters, the networks, even the Black Muslims co-created their realities and their reputations (whether they were aware of it or not).
In the same way, organizations are not in control of their brands. And neither are consumers. No one is in control. The idea of being in control implies that the future is predictable. But future events are not passive to past events. The future unfolds like an improvisational performance. You can play a part, but you don't write the plot. Despite today's growing obsession with data and measurement, the marketplace is not a predictable process. It's a dance.
Unfortunately, many leaders continue to respond to our complex, rapidly changing and increasing uncertain times with simplistic, cause-and-effect thinking and actions. Instead of embracing the hearts and minds of intelligent, self-interested and socially influenced human beings, they anxiously attempt to cause success to happen through a hodgepodge of uninspiring techniques and tactics. Doing what's vital, challenging, and remarkable has been replaced by a dispassionate calculus of consequences.
Great leaders understand the distinctions of today's tumultuous marketplace. They've given up the need to control events, have come to terms with their fears and egos, and are dedicated to adding value and happiness to people's lives. They inspire. They embrace change. They accept the uncertainty of the future. They trust people and help them live their dreams. By giving up the idea of control, they end up with the kind of relationships they really want; trusting and mutually beneficial ones. They move from the illusion of persuasive power to the reality of collaborative creation.
Charles F. Keating wrote, "A problem well stated is a problem half solved." Who controls the brand? isn't a problem well stated. In fact, it isn't a problem at all. For inquisitive types, it's a rhetorical question to help ponder the nature of success in today's chaotic marketplace. For everyone else, it's a distraction. Business and work are not problems to be solved; they're integral parts of our evolving stories. Success is not knowing how everything happens and then attempting to control it. Success is being inspired by something, and then flat out doing it.
Posted January 26, 2012
Permalink | Comments (0)
|
There's a huge dynamic underway, a cultural shift in the world of business accelerated by the rapid adoption of social technologies. This new worldview is about being human, as much as about being in business. It's about tuning in to your audience's new frequency. Turning on your inherent sense of curiosity and empathy. And ultimately, it's about being open and standing out in a marketplace that's bursting at the seams with self-centered, look-alike products, services and salespeople.
A successful transition to this new model requires 10 fundamental changes in mindset and behavior:
P.S. These principles are not new (I wrote them over 8 years ago). I am happy, however, to find many people finally catching on, or perhaps empowered to speak up, aided by the recent advancements in social technologies. Please keep it up! The establishment needs your 21st century, tuned-in perspective.
Posted January 25, 2012
Permalink | Comments (6)
|
Have you noticed that whenever the economy stalls most business leaders inappropriately cry “be innovative” when what they really mean is “be resourceful:”
“Times are tough people. We have to look for ways to do more with less. Let’s innovate!”
It certainly sounds more scholarly than “Buckle down!” but it’s still wrong. Innovation is not a mandated, disjointed course of action for optimizing daily activities. It’s a collaborative, strategic endeavor designed to add value to people's lives, while increasing the value of ones brand over time.
What is innovation?
Ask ten people to define innovation and you’ll get eleven answers. It’s a lot like asking people to define the word “branding.” The origin of the word innovate is simply, “to alter or renew.” But that’s about as useful as defining branding as, “to mark with, or as if with, a hot iron.” It doesn’t help inform decisions in an increasingly complex workplace and highly competitive marketplace. Here’s my view:
Innovation is the successful application of a new idea that results in a more desirable customer experience, and which is believed will make the brand more valuable to everyone over time.
Innovation, in this context, can range from business model and supply chain innovation to designing new products and processes, creative pricing and financing, even to the way people communicate. The new idea can be breakthrough or incremental. It can be a significant game changer, or a simple smile inducer. The one thing that it should not be is haphazard.
Idea generation may be chaotic and messy, but innovation needs to be purposefully designed and carefully orchestrated to inspire and align people, and to increase the value of the brand over time. What ever changes you make--from improvements in the product and productivity to innovations in sales and marketing--must ultimately be made around things that matter to everyone.
That’s right; they have to be things that you and your people, as well as your customers and the community, care deeply about. Because in today’s product saturated and increasingly transparent world, the marketplace will call out phonies and sycophants. More importantly, your people will only become engaged and creative when their activities have significant personal meaning, meaning beyond money. When it comes to something as challenging as innovation, passionate intent and total engagement is paramount.
People do not fear change.
Despite what conventional wisdom continues to whisper in your ear, people are not afraid of change. What they’re afraid of is darkness, uncertainty, the unknown. The most typical employee reaction to, “Let’s innovate!” is fear and confusion, because they don’t know what the hell that means. It’s like a coach yelling, “Let’s win!” without ever going over the strategy and tactics necessary to win (and with a bigger, more skilled opponent staring you in the face).
Why in the world will people change what they are doing without a clear vision of what that change will produce in the future? They won’t, especially not during tough economic times when every activity and dollar spent is routinely scrutinized. It is the duty of today’s leaders to eliminate that fear; to communicate a vivid and inspiring vision of the future, to shake things up, and to coach and encourage people to innovate.
Innovation has nothing to do with the ebb and flow of the economy, and everything to do with an organization's integrity of purpose. Its enemy is the reactionary rhetoric and disjointed activities that infect every organization that has taken its eyes off the ball and has lost the passion and resolve required to uniquely add value to people’s lives.
Don't let that happen to you.
Posted January 23, 2012
Permalink | Comments (1)
|
Take a look at your office. It's a box. Your computer? Another box. You leave work, climb into a box, and drive home to another, more expensive box.
Once settled into your box, you grab something to eat from a refrigerated box and plop down in front of a mesmerizing box.
Do you want to know what's draining your energy and passion? Confinement. Detachment. Comfort. Certainty. The "boxes."
Forget the bull about "thinking outside the box." If you want your passion to return, you've got to start living outside the box.
Posted January 20, 2012
Permalink | Comments (0)
|
I've written it here before, but I'm compelled by recent events to shout it out again: metaphors matter!
They're not merely figures of speech and writing, stylistic expressions that enrich communication. Metaphors structure people's thinking. Metaphors condition our sympathies. Metaphors direct our attention and influence our decisions and actions.
James Autry, retired CEO of Meredith Corporation wrote:
"Becoming a manager has much to do with learning the metaphors; becoming a good manager has much to do with using the metaphors; and becoming a leader has much to do with changing the metaphors."
Leaders set the tone for their people. It's time for them to step up and change today's bullshit business and political rhetoric.
There is no place for violent, hunting and war-like metaphors in today's world. War destroys! War creates division. War sucks, plain and simple.
Business and community service should enrich and advance life. They should be enjoyable endeavors that bring happiness to all people.
Screw Sun Tzu and his Art of War. To hell with killing our competition; they're our neighbors. People are not targets, fish to be reeled in, or territories to be captured.
We are our metaphors. Be a true leader and use them wisely. Our businesses, communities, and children's futures depend on it.
Posted January 17, 2012
Permalink | Comments (0)
|
I was recently asked my opinion of politics as it relates to the concept of branding (could be the swarm of politicians in my home state). If you're interested, here's something I wrote almost three years ago soon after the election of our 44th President. I hope it helps make the distinction called "brand" a bit clearer.
Understanding Brand Obama
"The word [brand] is a sloppy metaphor for a whole bunch of stuff (much of which isn't entirely true) with the power to distract you from precise thinking, expression and action."
- Mark Earls,
The title of this article is a bit misleading. I am not about to compare a newly elected national leader, who inherited a complex and highly consequential set of issues, with a can of soda pop or a pair of running shoes. Sorry.
That being said, and despite the fact that I typically eschew the idea of humans as brands, I do believe that President Obama's most recent history provides a valuable lesson on the concept of "brand;" that sloppy metaphor that confuses many and annoys the rest.
Fifteen weeks ago, Barack Obama was enthusiastically chosen by 62.98 million Americans (52 percent of the total number of people who both could, and did, choose). But what precisely did the ardent majority believe they were getting with their brand choice? What were they thinking and feeling at the time?
Ask and they'll tell you "Change" (that was the brand "promise" after all). And change they got: the first African-American President; an intelligent, articulate and polished speaker; and a thoughtful, bipartisan bridge-builder. So you'd expect them all to be feeling pretty good about their brand choice, right? Hardly.
So much for good feelings
Environmentalists are concerned that Obama's requisite focus on the economic crisis will push back their green agenda. And they weren't happy to find out that President Obama, who has said that we can no longer keep "our homes at 72 degrees at all times," has cranked up the thermostat in the Oval office. "You could grow orchids in there," admitted advisor David Axelrod. "He's from Hawaii, okay? He likes it warm."
Liberals are dispirited by the stimulus plan, which by all accounts contains the biggest tax cuts in history. Conservatives are troubled by the superfluous government spending and the soaring deficit, as well as the assertive plan to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq.
Washington outsiders are dealing with the cognitive dissonance of their choice induced by Obama's problematic Cabinet picks, considering his promise to "change the ways of Washington." And tech-savvy voters are dismayed by, of all things, the paucity of "tweets" since Obama took office. What's going on?
Take a long, considered look at the following brand decision representation:
Here's what's going on: President Obama was chosen from essentially two options (duopolistic competition) based primarily on strategically crafted words and images. Voters created an expectation of brand Obama's actions based on those sensory inputs, and his subsequent performance is now creating the brand experience of each voter.
Yes, Obama "promised" change. Unfortunately for him, and for those who suffer from this particular brand delusion, a brand is not a promise. It's a personal expectation and, ultimately, an experience measured against that expectation. And so, many people are now experiencing incongruity with their choice of the Obama brand. It was inevitable.
The bottom line
If the market for "Presidents" was not duopolistic and voters were not "locked in" with their brand choice, many would be actively searching for a more desirable alternative; one better aligned with their particular predilections. But they can't. And that's why the forced, mass market nature of politics, which is driven by words and images, is an inappropriate exemplar for anything to do with modern day brands.
In today's marketplace of abundance, people will modify their brand choice in a heartbeat if they feel that doing so will better align with their sense of self and contribute more substantially to their pursuit of happiness. Hence the nichification of most markets.
Yes, words and images are important in influencing choice in that they can help create expectations; expectations of near term experiences. And if successfully rendered, they will compel people to investigate further or, in low risk decisions (or in duopolistic ones), to simply choose the brand with little consideration.
Words and images can also be creatively employed to reinforce brand choice, but they are not the most important part of the brand story. That role on the stage belongs to the performance of the brand, which ultimately creates the reinforcing cognitive experience of the customer. And, as all great marketers know, how people feel about themselves and their decision to choose a brand--enlivened by the eventual realization of their unique expectations--is what creates the good feelings that endure over time.
So how will brand Obama fare? It all depends on his constituents' changing expectations, along with Obama's ability to both shape and enliven those expectations through improved experiences. In the end, only time will tell. But, unlike most other brand choices, his constituents will have no other option but to wait, hope and see.
P.S. We'll know in precisely 305 days.
Posted January 6, 2012
Permalink | Comments (0)
|
Someone once said that the pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity and the optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty. Which one will the challenging New Year draw out of you? Do you want to know? It's really quite simple.
Every person has both the dog of optimism and the dog of pessimism inside of them. The one you see most often is the one you feed most often. I truly hope that you feed the hopeful one in 2012--the one with the bright, shining eyes of possibility--and live a life of passion, not pretense.
(Rest assured, we will never provide your email address to anyone. Period.)
RSS feed
Tom on Twitter
@tomasacker
Tom is timely, thought provoking and all about the new brand vision packaged as a Seinfeld stand up. I went to school on his ideas.
Jeff Taylor, Founder, Monster.com and CEO, Eons.
When Tom Asacker writes, I read. Opportunity Screams is the right message for the right time.
Tom Peters
