Is your Social Media Director qualified?

Social Media Directors should know how to do their jobs without having to ask for help every five minutes:

So I look down and the (twitter) DM reads: “Hey, can you help me out? Not sure how to do this. How do I use Twitter to gain traction for my company? Thanks!” I stare at it for a while and decide to blow it off for now, not because I have better things to do (which I do) and not because I don’t really have time to build a Twitter business plan for this person right this second (which I don’t), but because that DM comes from a newly minted Social Media Director at a fairly visible company who basically just asked me to help them hold on to a job they obviously didn’t deserve to be hired for.

I slide my Blackberry Storm into my back pocket and find myself flashbacking to 11th grade: It’s final exams time and I am in hour two of IB Biology. The essay section. One of the kids in my class is behind me, gently kicking my chair, whispering, begging me to move my scrap/notes where they can read them.

And I am almost tempted to do it.

That same conversation starts taking place in my head. I’m in a position to help someone in need.  But wait… cheating is cheating. Don’t do it. But still, I feel that I should help. Arrrgh…

I reach for the blackberry, launch Twitterberry (which is not my favorite app, by the way), and respond: “Wait… You got the job, right? Don’t you know how to do this? Isn’t that why you were hired?”

For hours, no response. And then it comes. “Yeah, but I’m in a little over my head. I’ve never worked with Social Media in a business context before. ;)”

Again. This from a Director-level individual now working for a pretty well known company.

Not cool.

I suffer through similar exchanges weekly now, and I am not happy about it. What does this trend say about what types of people are going after Social Media management jobs – and landing them with alarming frequency these days? At the very least, I am worried about how this is going to end up hurting Social Media’s legitimacy in the business world. (Watch the video for my reasoning on this specific point.)

If the video doesn’t launch, you can go watch it here. Thanks, Viddler).

With this disturbing development weighing on me more and more these past few months, I’ve been thinking long and hard about what is going on in the Social Media “management” world, and I’ve basically come down to two conclusions: The first (which we’ll get back to in a few minutes) is that the qualifications of Social Media Directors may not be entirely clear to the folks interviewing and hiring applicants for those positions. The second is that as a result of this, confusion, we are now looking at three distinct types of Social Media Directors/Managers scampering about in the corporate world, some good, some okay, and some really bad.

The first type is the best type: These folks are super smart, talented, experienced in a broad range of disciplines, have an established footprint in the Social Media space (through blogs, Twitter, Ning, various communities), are recognized as thought leaders (or as emerging thought leaders), and are unquestionably passionate about what they do. Folks like Chris Brogan, Frank Eliason, Amber Naslund, Mack Collier, Beth Harte, Valeria Maltoni, etc. These are folks who are truly writing the book on how to build social media practices and smoothly integrate them in the organizations they work with.

The second type isn’t quite as savvy, but it isn’t lacking in talent, smarts and enthusiasm. These are people who basically don’t know how to be Social Media directors yet, but are learning fast. And most importantly, they are completely open about the fact that they are still in that learning stage, which means that their employers are okay with it. In spite of the fact that they are still very junior, the companies they work for saw in them a lot of potential and decided to hire them toward that end. (I dig people like this a lot.)

The third type is what I would call the bad type. Not bad as in cool, but rather… bad as in unethical, inept and unprofessional. These are the con artists. The shams. The hacks. The folks whose egos and selfishness led them to a moment in their lives when they unapologetically took a job they knew they weren’t qualified for. And now here they are: Social Media Director for Company ABC, soon to move over to Company XYZ, and so on. One position validating the next, one impressive brand on their resume justifying consideration by the next, and so it goes: A perpetual daisy chain of high profile Social Media management job built on unadulterated douchebaggery and thinly-disguised mediocrity.

(Ironically, this third group tends to be the same one that perpetuates the notion that Social Media ROI either doesn’t exist or is “unwise” to try and measure. Yeah. Convenient, isn’t it?)

Before we go on, here are some red flags to help you identify deadbeat Social Media Directors:

Every time you see a major global consumer brand engaging with less than 5% of its active (vocal) customers on a popular Social Media platform like Twitter after 8-10 months of activity, you can bet that their Social Media Director belongs to that third category.

If every time you walk into your monthly status meeting with your new Social Media Director and ask them for the latest, they either talk to you about google analytics, confuse you with endless spreadsheets or launch into a “Social Media takes time” monologue, chances are that they belong to that third category.

If you ask your Social Media Director why their efforts aren’t scaling very fast or producing the numbers you expected and they give you a story about engagement not being a numbers game, chances are that they belong in that third category.*

If when you ask them for real business metrics, impact analysis and (god forbid) ROI and they either give you a blank stare or explain that these things don’t apply to Social Media, they probably belong to that third category.

And when you ask them how they plan to integrate Social Media into customer service, Human Resources, Public Relations, Marketing, Business Development or any other silo in your organization and they schedule a later meeting to address that instead of answering on the spot, guess what category they probably belong to.

The thing about that third category is that they’ll never admit that they don’t know something. Because they get by every day by producing massive amounts of bulls**t, they will automatically default to making something up on the spot or deflecting questions with well crafted excuses. That’s their most damning trait, and what gives them away every time: They always know, and they’re never wrong (except… they don’t, and they are, and now you’re wise to it).

* Simple test to prove or disprove a “depth before breadth” response:

First – On Twitter, look  at the number of brand mentions vs. the number of your brand’s account mentions. Big difference? Ask why. Then ask your Social Media Director what they are doing to raise awareness for your presence in the space. Breadth matters, no matter what your overpaid hack of a Social Media honcho tells you.

Second – Look at the number of comments directly aimed at your account. 20 per day? 50 per day? Now look at how many of these requests for attention were acknowledged with some sort of reply. 100%? 80%? Less than 25%? If your Social Media Director claims that they are focusing on depth of engagement instead of breadth, yet they only respond to less than half of the handshakes thrown at them daily, maybe it’s time you found out what he/she actually does with his/her time.

What should you be looking for in an applicant interested in becoming your next Social Media Director ?

I could go on with my indictment of poser Social Media Directors all day long, but I would rather put this post to a more productive use: Since so many of these hacks are getting through the recruiting filter, why don’t we focus on helping interviewers distinguish good applicants from bad ones, starting with some traits and skills they want and need in a Social Media Director. Think of this as a checklist for would-be Social Media Directors, and please feel free to add your own suggestions by leaving a comment.

• Applicant has developed and managed marketing programs before. Not just campaigns but programs.
• Applicant has had a continuous professional presence in the Social Media space (via blogs, Twitter, Facebook, Ning or other platforms) for at least one year.
• Applicant has managed a business blog and/or business community for a minimum of one year.
• Applicant has built or managed a community for longer than one year.
• Applicant has at least two years of experience managing projects and working across organizational silos.
• Applicant has managed a brand or product line for more than one year.
• Applicant has demonstrated a strong ability to forge lasting relationships across a variety of media platforms over the course of his/her career.
• Applicant understand the difference between vertical and lateral action when it comes to customer/community engagement – and has working knowledge of how to leverage both.
• Applicant demonstrates a thorough knowledge of the Social Media space, including usage and demographic statistics for the most popular/relevant platforms as well as a few niche platforms of his/her choice.
• Applicant has managed national market research projects.
• Applicant demonstrates a throrough understanding of the nuances between Social Media platforms and the communities they serve. (Example: MySpace vs. Facebook or YouTube vs. Seesmic)
• Applicant understands the breadth of tools and methods at his/her disposal to set goals and measure success in the Social Media space. (Applicant’s toolkit is not limited to Google analytics.)
• Applicant can cite examples of companies with successful social media programs and companies with ineffective social media programs. He/she can also argue comfortably why each was either successful or unsuccessful.
• Applicant has been active on Twitter for more than 8 months.
• Applicant knows who Chris Brogan, Jeremiah Owyang and Peter Kim are.
• Applicant is comfortable enough with business measurement methods to know the difference between financial impact (ROI) and non-financial impact. He/she also knows why the difference between the two is relevant.
• Applicant demonstrates the ability to build and manage a Social Media practice that works seamlessly with PR, product marketing, event management and customer support teams within the organization.
• Applicant has managed a work team for more than one year. He/she was responsible for the training and development of that team.
• Applicant has spent at least one year in a project management role outside of an ad agency, PR or other Marketing firm.
• Applicant can tell a personal story involving either Digg, Seesmic or both.
• Applicant has been responsible for managing a budget/P&L.
• Applicant demonstrates a high level of proficiency working with popular Social Media platforms and apps such as FaceBook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Flickr, Ning, Seesmic, YouTube, FriendFeed, WordPress and Tumblr.
• Applicant is capable of mapping out a basic Social Media monitoring plan on a cocktail napkin.
• Applicant is more excited about engagement, building an internal practice and finding out about your business’ pain points than he/she is about firebombing you with the full scope of their Social Media skills’ awesomeness.
• Applicant already has the framework of a Social Media plan for your company before he/she even walks through the front door, and thankfully, it doesn’t involve setting up a fan page on FaceBook.
• Applicant actually knows how to use Twitter to help your company build brand equityonline and offline without having to DM people for help.

Your turn. What do you think is missing from this checklist?

And how do we stop this kind of nonsense?

Read Full Post »

How to NOT calculate Social Media R.O.I.

At the Greenville Sprint Triathlon

So Andrew Mueller (@andrewmueller) pointed me to this Social Media R.O.I. calculator thing yesterday, and I have to admit that I was pretty psyched at first that someone had figured out how to create what I thought was… well, impossible to create in a table/equation type format.

That was until I started actually looking at it and realized that it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Watch the video for the full explanation (and the kind version of this post):

Here is the link to the calculator: http://www.dragonsearchmarketing.com/social-media-roi-calculator.htm

First of all, let me let you in on some truth about the “how” of R.O.I. measurement that will probably disappoint you: As far as I can tell, there really is no way to calculate Social Media R.O.I. through an equation or a cost-accounting type table. It just doesn’t work that way. I know it isn’t what you want to hear, but I am not one to blow smoke or sell you sunshine and daisies on a cloudy day.

In order to do it right, you have to take timelines into consideration: When a campaign or program started and ended in relation to deltas (changes) in sales and other metrics.  You have to separate spikes from trends. You have to measure the impact of all media and all channels in order to isolate sticky elements from ineffective ones. You have to be able to look at the impact of special offers and promotions separately from the impact of your social media activities alone. It is a multi-phased and multi-layered process. Kind of like pealing the layers of an onion while looking at each layer’s tangential relationship to (overlaid) timelines for a variety of activities. Not difficult, (and certainly not as difficult as it sounds) but much more involved and complex than a cookie-cutter equation on a spreadsheet.

I know everyone wants that magic pill, that miracle R.O.I. calculator that fits on just one page (fill in the blanks and watch Excel do its magic), but it isn’t that simple. If it were, ad agencies and PR firms would have figured it out long ago. And while it is tempting to want to believe that such an equation or calculator exists, it doesn’t.

Not that it will stop masses of Social Media and measurement “gurus” from trying to sell you their own particular flavor of “proven, secret” measurement snake-oil. Be forewarned because they are starting to come out of the woodwork and this whole R.O.I. thing is about to become a monumental clusterf**k if we don’t start calling people out on their BS right away.

Getting into the R.O.I. Calculator: Section 1 – The setup

So anyway… since Social Media R.O.I. can’t be calculated in one single step, the very notion of this calculator is flawed from the start. But then it gets worse: All you have to do is take a look at some of the elements of this “calculator” equation to smell the pungent and all too familiar aroma of BS. Check out these screenshots:

(above) Not a bad start. We have some cost accounting there, some setup and training costs… Good wholesome stuff to start with. But it doesn’t take long for the calculator to start getting into cost per click and incoming traffic… Which might belong in the calculator somewhere… but front and center like this? Not likely… unless whomever crafted it happens to come from a web analytics background. (You tend to first want to measure what you know.)

The danger in this is that less than five lines into this calculator, we already find ourselves prey to an old-school web analytics mentality that has absolutely nothing to do with Social Media.

Mark my words: The tendency to turn solely to web analytics specialists to measure the impact of Social Media is going to be a monumental mistake made by most businesses that engage in Social Media in the coming year. And sadly, it is inevitable: Business folks making these decisions don’t understand that the social web is the Seine river, not all of Paris.

Just like IT managers shouldn’t be the de-facto bloggers for their companies, web analytics people shouldn’t be measuring R.O.I. just because the tools are digital.

But back to this post and the calculator: Is traffic to a site really the most important metric to focus on? And based on this calculator, are we to infer that our Social Media strategy to attract customers begins with pay-per-click banners and Google Ads? Seriously?

As an aside, “cost of incoming traffic” might be a better title for the bottom section than “value of incoming traffic.” Just a thought.

But that’s nothing. It gets much worse:

Getting into the R.O.I. Calculator – Section 2: The dollar value of stories and WOM (Huh?)

(Above): I don’t need to dive too deeply into the nonsense on display in the above screenshot. It kind of speaks for itself – with the help of my little red comments. Quantity of stories? Value of stories? What? Um… What stories? and how do you assign arbitrary value to a story? Even if this were relevant to Social Media and conversations in some way (which it isn’t), someone please explain to me how one calculates the value of a story.

Or the value of puppies?

Or the value of sock-flinging?

The worst are yet to come (my favorites): “Word of Mouth Value” and “Word of Mouth Value Gross”. I can’t even come up with anything smart to say about this. How do you assign a dollar value to WOM exactly? Oh, never mind.

And then we get into focus groups. Seriously. Focus groups? In a Social Media R.O.I. calculator?

I swear on my front yard’s emerald lushness, this thing is real. I did not make this up.

But hang on, it isn’t over:

Getting into the R.O.I. Calculator – Section 3: We’re already out of ideas so let’s just make **it up!

(Above): The third and final section of the Social Media R.O.I. calculator looks at the cost of employee engagement, right? Yet the three elements of this cost accounting fiasco ask for estimates. Not hard numbers, but estimates. As in a questionnaire to circulate around the office asking people to estimate how much time they spend using Social Media.

Not hard numbers, but guesses. To calculate R.O.I. Seriously.

Not only that, but this is it. Calculation over. Hit submit and you’re done.

Are you kidding me?

Are you kidding me.

But wait, there’s still more – The calculator comes with a digest of what you’ve actually calculated, in context:

(Above): The benefit analysis spreadsheet (priceless). The four elements listed are “Advertising value,” “PR value,” WOM Value” and focus group equivalence value.

Take a close look at that table. Read every word. Get into the thinking behind it (if you can). Now answer these simple questions:

1. What does any of this have to do with Social Media, engaging in conversations, building relationships with customers, building value, managing a brand’s online reputation, or increasing brand relevance – for starters? How is any actual engagement measured?

2. What is this actually measuring, aside from estimated labor costs, pay-per-clicks and… focus group substitutes? (I can’t figure it out.)

3. In what universe does this actually calculate R.O.I. of… anything?

4. Were transactions or sales ever mentioned? Social Mention, maybe? Conversions? Loyalty indicators?

5. Would you like that giant bag of bulls**t sent to you pre-paid or C.O.D.?

One final word about Social Media and Professional Responsibility:

Note that this calculator was developed by two pretty smart and well respected people in the New Media world, and I am sure they meant well, but this is the kind of thing that companies really need to watch out for: Well-packaged nonsense that just doesn’t work.

At all.

Not even in make-believe land.

Which leads me to my last point: This is the real world, people. Where the stakes are: If you screw companies out of hefty consulting fees and they follow your made-up advice, they lose money and people end up losing their jobs. Real people with real families who depend on them. Because of you. So if you lie about what you can and can’t do, shame on you for being part of the problem instead of being part of the solution, and for preying on open-minded execs who stick their necks out to try to do something cool for a change. Shame. Really.

So… Social Media “experts” and measurement “gurus” or whatever you like to call yourselves this week… Stop with the bulls**t. If you don’t know how to calculate Social Media’s impact or its R.O.I., don’t just make something up. Admit that you don’t know how to do it, and go talk to someone who does know so they can help you. If not for your own sake, for the sake of the companies who PAY you to be their trusted advisors and need your “expert” help. It is the professional (and the ethical) thing to do. Don’t just take the cash and make it up as you go. Come on.

Okay, rant over for now. Have a great weekend. We’ll continue this discussion next week, and my videos probably won’t be so very nice. 😉

Read Full Post »

ROI vs. “Impact on X” – Understanding what Social Media ROI is and isn’t.

Don’t want to read the post? Watch the video. (It’s faster.) Note: That last little part got cut a little short, but you’ll get the point.

Okay, so it became obvious to me last week that the term R.O.I. has been seriously corrupted in Marketing and Social Media circles lately, and it might not hurt to bring some clarity to the Social Media R.O.I. discussion again.

(I swear I was going to talk about other things this week, but I keep getting pulled back in.) 😀

First things first: You have to understand the difference between Impact and Return On Investment.

Impact can be anything: Increased traffic on a website, more visitors to your store, increased participation on your blog, more mind share, being discovered by people who may become customers, a rise in positive social mention, and even increased sales. There are hundreds if not thousands of potential incidences of impact when it comes to your Social Media activities, and every single one can be easily measured using a variety of tools – from Google Analytics to Radian 6. As a matter of fact, every possible kind of impact you deem relevant should be measured and taken into account when it comes to gauging the effectiveness of a Social Media program. In this, we are all in agreement.

Impact can be measured in eyeballs. Impact can be measured in comments on a blog post. Impact may be measured in conversations. Impact can be measured in responses to a BOGO offer or discount offer. Impact can even be measured in smiles.  When it comes to impact metrics, the sky is the limit and every business has its own mapping to figure out and play with.

But then you have ROI, which is a completely different animal: ROI is a very specific subset of Impact in that it relates specifically to the business’ bottom-line. In other words, Return on Investment cannot be measured in eyeballs, unique visitors, conversations, mentions, impressions or smiles. ROI can only be measured in currency. (Think of ROI as the subset of impact that specifically addresses revenue and nothing else.)

There is no “Return on Impact”.

There is no “Return on awesomeness.”

For the sake of this discussion, there is no “Return on conversations” either.

These things are cool, they’re fun to tweet about, but they don’t exist in the world of revenue, payroll and pragmatic business decisions. “Return on investment” is simply that: A business commits a certain dollar amount to a program and expects to see that program produce just like any other investment. If it doesn’t, it gets cut and a program that will produce better R.O.I. will take its place faster than you can say “huh?”. It’s that simple.

Some businesses are okay with cost-neutral investments: If they put in $100K and get $100K back as a direct result, you’re fine. The program has paid for itself, and the collateral impact was worth it. (More visibility, more conversation, more word-of-mouth, etc.) But many don’t. When I was learning FRY from Microsoft, their R.O.I. expectations for any program they funded in their distribution channel was 10:1. In other words, for each dollar Microsoft invested, they expected to see $10 back.

Trust me: In that kind of environment, you learn how to define and calculate ROI pretty quickly. And while eyeballs, unique visitors and social mention are nice, they don’t fall into the realm of ROI. Nice try, but no dice.

All of this to say that no business will invest in a program that offers a negative return on investment. Conversations, transparency and positive WOM may be the currency of choice for many of us, but unless you can show that they generate dollars, you are not demonstrating ROI. You are only demonstrating impact, and that is not enough.

What everyone needs to start realizing right now is that the business world is not going to change in just a few months just because a few thousand of us evangelize the immense potential of the social web. Business managers are not going to change anything they are doing because you have introduced them to transparency or dialogue or the power of communities. PR directors are not going to suddenly going to stop crafting press releases or relinquish control of the “messaging” they get paid to create. CEOs aren’t going to drop what they are doing and start blogging because you tell them to. CMOs aren’t going to fire their copywriters and replace them with community managers. Customer Service managers are not going to cancel their call center contracts with India and the Philipines and hire US-based Tweeps to replace them. None of these things are going to happen UNTIL you show business owners that Social Media can actually improve their bottom-line, their balance sheet, their P&L, and how.

This starts with a basic understanding of what ROI is and isn’t: If you don’t understand what your client or boss is asking for when s/he brings up ROI, you cannot help them. If they repeatedly ask you for ROI and you keep giving them impact on X instead, how disconnected are you? Think about that.

If you can’t give them what they want, if they don’t get what they keep asking you for, before you know it, they will give up on your Social Media program. And all because you didn’t know how to connect the dots between activity, impact, and ROI.

Likewise, if you are a business manager and your resident Social Media consultant/expert doesn’t understand the difference between impact on X and ROI, it’s probaly time for a new expert.

One last thing:

Anyone who tells you that Social Media ROI cannot be calculated, that the tools don’t exist yet, or that Social Media is about conversations and not ROI is putting up a smoke screen. What they should be saying is “I don’t know how to do that yet,” but it’s a lot easier to perpetuate the myth that Social Media ROI cannot be calculated – for obvious reasons. It’s a terribly self serving and counterproductive thing to do, and “professionals” in the Social Media world need to stop hiding behind that argument before business leaders looking for real traction give up on Social Media altogether. At some point, all that hot air has to actually turn into something real.

The irony in all this is that the ROI calculation process is the same regardless of the medium: Old Media, New Media, Print media, Digital media – The medium doesn’t matter. ROI is ROI. Anyone who talks about Social Media ROI as being somehow radically different from other types of ROI is demonstrating a profound lack of understanding of ROI as a whole. Red flag. BIG red flag. Learn to spot it.

I hope this helped reframe the ROI vs. impact conversation a bit. If so, do me a big favor and pass this on to someone who will get some value out of it. The faster we help people use the right terminology when talking about this stuff (and dispel myths about ROI measurement), the more likely we are to see broad Social Media adoption for business actually happen (and be done well).

Thanks for hanging out with me, and have a great day. 🙂

Read Full Post »

Real Social Media R.O.I. – Part 4: FRY Metrics

Before I wrap this Social Media ROI discussion together for you with a neat little bow, I have to give credit where credit is due: I didn’t come up with this stuff all on my own. I adapted this simple methodology over time to meet the needs of clients who needed real, actionable, simple metrics to determine whether or not their marketing activities were hitting the mark or not.

The real credit belongs to Microsoft for introducing me to these concepts back when I was working in the Distribution Channel. (Big shout-out to @robmoyer and Lisa Williams, by the way, without whom I would have never learned this stuff.)

Originally, F.R.Y. (Frequency/Reach/Yield) wasn’t meant to be applied to Social Media (or any media, for that matter). But as it turns out, it adapts super well to just about anything, so I kind of lucked out by being exposed to it in the first place. Pretty handy stuff, really, when you grasp just how portable it is.

Anyway, you guys have been very patient, so I won’t drag this out any longer. Here is the wrap-up of this week’s R.O.I. discussion with a basic overview of F.R.Y. (You’re going to love how easy this is):

So let’s recap:

Frequency Increasing sales revenue by shortening the interval between transactions.
Reach (breadth) Increasing sales revenue by increasing net new customer count.
Reach (Depth) Increasing sales revenue by helping customers buy deeper into the product line.
Yield Increasing sales revenue by driving customers to want to increase their average per transaction spending.

Getting comfortable with this effectively kills the argument that SM has no real ROI dead. As in: “Yeah? Well how about a mouthful of F.R.Y. there, Mr. social media skeptic?”

Bullet-in-the-head dead.

As in let’s move on and get back to work – at least those of us who know what we are doing.

Does any of this change the way you should engage with your customers? Not one bit. Does any of this make your engagement strategy any less honest, transparent or authentic? Absolutely not. All we are talking about here is giving skeptical (or even full-bore Social Media-agnostic) executives a real end-game ROI they can understand and get behind so you can get the okay to launch a kickass social media practice and blow everyone’s socks off. That’s it.

Oh… and make you accountable for results, which ought to weed out about 99% of so-called “social media experts” whose expertise in using Social Media is about on par with their expertise in eating sushi. (And just as valuable to their unfortunate clients.)

Aside from that last comment, the beauty of F.R.Y. is that it is simple, specific and highly adaptable. Social Media, PR, Advertising, Product releases, incentives campaigns… It plugs into everything. F.R.Y. is the ultimate app. for R.O.I. measurement. Once you understand how it works, you can apply it to just about anything.

One final note:

Do you know what’s really, really cool about this? You didn’t have to spend $400 to attend a Social Media e-seminar. You didn’t have to send a P.O. Box 3 payments of $39.99 plus S&H for a super top secret DVD filled with “Social Media Secrets the pros don’t want you to know”. You didn’t have to fly some overhyped blogger to your HQ to have them regurgitate some tired Social Media For Dummies presentation for a mere $15K per day. This stuff is WAY too basic to warrant that, and unlike many “consultants” jumping into Social Media these days, I wouldn’t feel right taking your money for sharing simple business advice without actually helping you implement it.

Yet, far too many companies get suckered into paying “social media gurus” substantial bank to essentially do little more than flap their mouths and state the obvious without ever delivering any actionable advice. Don’t become one of them. If all you want is a great motivational speaker, buy a set of Tony Robbins CDs. He’s good and you’ll get your money’s worth. But if you want to help your business – and I mean REALLY help your business – make sure you don’t fall into the Social Media “expert” trap: 99% of them are basically just motivational speakers with a Social Media theme. Find someone who knows how to a) measure real ROI and b) tie those metrics to engagement programs. Anything less than that is a waste of your time.

Thanks for hanging out this week. As always, feel free to comment or reach out to me. Have a great Memorial Day weekend. 🙂

Inquiries:
Tel – 864.630.7398
Inquiries@thebrandbuildermarketing.com
Twitter – @thebrandbuilder

Read Full Post »

We have that under control.

If I had a dollar for every time I have heard a company either say these words or infer them, I would be driving a much nicer car.

“We have that under control.”

Sure you do. 😀

That is why you are seeing 1,000%+ YoY growth.

That is why you are the category leader in your market and enjoy 80%+ market share.

That is why your brand commands rabid, cult-like loyalty from your customers.

That is why you don’t even need to advertise anymore. Word-of-mouth from existing customers is so good that people are tripping all over themselves to do business with you.

That is why while everyone else is cutting back, you can’t hire staff fast enough to meet your massive growth.

That is why you are driving companies that used to be your competition out of business.

That is why you have already been on the covers of both Fast Company and Inc. this year.

That is why Oprah is singing your praises every other day.

That is why you already have hundreds of thousands of followers on Twitter.

That is why your CEO, CMO and other key managers are invited to speak at conferences on a regular basis.

That is why you attract the best talent from around the world without ever having to post a single position on a job board.

Yeah. You have everything under control. I can see that. The quality of your products is stellar. Exemplary, even. Your innovative spirit has helped redefine not only markets but culture as a whole. The way we live. The way we work. The way we communicate. You are the Apple or the Starbucks or the BMW of your industry.

Your Marketing communications are so fluid, organic and true that your company culture oozes from every press release, from every brochure, from every page of your website(s). It emanates from every employee. No… wait, “emanates” is the wrong word. It “radiates.” That’s better. Your company culture radiates from every single employee, from the CEO on down to the janitor, and it rings so true that people simply flock to you out of principle. Even if people don’t use your product, they love your company because of what it represents.

That’s how much you have things under control.

Your listening posts are everywhere. Every time someone says positive about your brand on the web, your community manager(s) and PR team know it, make a note of it, and even send out a little nod of appreciation. Likewise, when someone shares a negative experience or opinion, the same team immediately reacts and reaches out to the person or persons to find out how they might turn that negative experience into a good one. And that team does this flawlessly. It is fast, supremely professional and friendly, and doesn’t let anything fall through the cracks. Again, every such web interaction is cataloged, measured and reported.

Because you have everything under control.

You never ship late – and when you do, you make sure to make it right for your customers. You never make it difficult for customers to return a product or go through the warranty process. Your customer service/customer support team is among the best in the world. If you suddenly went out of business, people’s lives would be in shambles.

But when something goes wrong, the fact that you have hundreds of thousands of followers across your blog(s), Twitter, Facebook and other social web communities makes it easy for you to turn a crisis into a case study of how well companies can handle themselves when they get broadsided by an issue.

Because you have everything under control.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Whatever you say.

Every time a corporate honcho utters the phrase “we have that under control” or “we have that covered” or “we’re good in that department,” the red flags pop out of their stupid little heads like jacks-in-the-box.

Pop. Pop. Pop. Pop. Pop.

Whenever I hear that phrase, I catch myself laughing outloud… Which I probably shouldn’t do, but I can’t help it because it is so… predictable, in a sad, foreshadowing sort of way.

This is what it must feel to substance abuse counselors every time an addict sits in their chair for the first time and says “I don’t have a problem”or “I can stop whenever I want.”

You see it and hear the words enough times, you learn to understand the depth of the associated dysfunction before the response is fully formulated… And what always disappoints, I suppose, is the degree of predictability and… banality I now associate with that type of reply coming from professionals and industry veterans who clearly should know better.

In my head, I imagine myself thumbing through a dictionary, looking for the exact definition of the word delusional:

From http://www.merriam-webster.com: Delusion (noun) di-ˈlü-zhən, dē-

Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin delusion-, delusio, from deludere (15th century)

1: the act of deluding : the state of being deluded

2 a: something that is falsely or delusively believed or propagated b: a persistent false (psychotic) belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary ; also : the abnormal state marked by such beliefs

And then I wonder how the clown I am having that conversation with ever managed to get promoted to a position of influence within a company whose very survival is now at stake because of either one of two things: a. Simple stupidity on their part, or b. an even less excusable and insidiously destructive ego trip. (Sometimes, both.)

To any company exec who thinks it smart to puff out their chests (even figuratively) and exclaim “we have that under control,” I say “grow up and get real”. That kind of ill-informed confidence will kill companies and brands faster than an accounting scandal or major recall. This isn’t a game. This isn’t about playing Mr. big-shot. This isn’t about “being right.”

What it is about is being smart – and that means being realistic, open-minded, and responsible.

Fact: No company has “it” figured out. Even if it seems that you are doing “it” better than everyone else, guess what: You can still do it better. And just because you do it well now doesn’t mean that you will still do it well in six months. Conditions change. Customer needs and expectations change. Your company’s staff and culture changes. Doing “it” right is as ephemeral a thing as breaking a world record. It comes and goes. One day you’re on top, and the next, poof. You have to readjust.

Companies should always be in the process of re-adjusting.

In the military, complacency and false confidence will get you killed. The business world is no different.

Show me a guy who thinks or runs a team under the delusion that he has everything under control, and I will show you a disaster waiting to happen.

All of that aside, what really tugs at my curiosity is this: What is so hard (for a good chunk of corporate executives) about simply accepting the possibility that maybe – just maybe – they haven’t thought of everything.

Maybe the Titanic isn’t truly unsinkable.

Maybe winning the war in Iraq isn’t that simple.

Maybe Apple without Steve Jobs or the culture he built can find itself circling the drain inside of five years.

Maybe poor leadership can kill or severely endanger major companies like Enron, GM, AIG and Circuit City.

Maybe iconic lovebrands like Levi’s can go from global Top 10 to WalMart sales bins in les than a decade.

Maybe platforms like Google and Twitter can make your business model completely obsolete inside of 24 months.

For every one of these stories and thousands more, there was a guy who thought he had things pretty much under control… when he really didn’t.

Maybe the first step to getting your company out of the ditch is realizing that you’re in the ditch to begin with. Just because the engine makes a sound and the needle reacts when you put your foot on the accelerator doesn’t mean you’re actually going anywhere.

And maybe the second step to getting your company out of a ditch is accepting the fact that you need expert help. Maybe a little bit, maybe alot, maybe somewhere in between.

So next time someone offers you advice or a helping hand, stop and think before you speak. Listen to what they have to say. The fact they they may hold the solution to a problem you weren’t aware of yet doesn’t make you any less of a man or manager or executive. You can’t think of everything. You can’t plan for everything. Not alone anyway, and certainly not from the same vantage point you enjoy day in, day out.

Stopping to ask for directions does not reflect poorly on your manhood or ability to navigate uncharted roads. Admitting that perhaps your engagement strategy could be better, that your social web strategy is really nowhere, that your staff isn’t as talented or effective or professional as you would like, that your product design isn’t as hot as the other guys… None of these things make you inept or weak or undeserving of your paycheck.

Pretending that everything is perfectly under control, however, does.

So next time you find yourself across a desk or coffee table from someone like me and they ask you how you’re doing in a particular area of your business, instead of putting up a wall of self-destructive bullshit, why not turn the tables on them instead, and ask them… “I don’t know. What do you think?”

1. You will get the benefit of an expert opinion – which you can still choose to ignore if that floats your boat.

2. You might actually find yourself in a position to gain a competitive advantage and improve your business for the first time in six months (or longer).

1 in 7 companies will typically jump at the opportunity to partner with someone who can help them gain a competitive advantage and come out of a challenge smarter, stronger and better. The other 6 will usually wait and wait and wait while things get worse, because well… you know… they have things under control.

Trust me: If you really have things under control, I won’t reach out to you. You don’t need someone like me. You’re doing fine. But if I tap you on the shoulder and invite you to chat, maybe – just maybe – you might want to put your own Fortune 500, global brand management genius, 5th Avenue ego aside and listen to what I have to tell you for a few minutes.

Believe it or not, you might actually benefit from the exchange.

… or you could just blow me off and continue pretending that you have it all under control.

It’s a whole new week: 1 out of 7 businesses is already getting ahead of the rest. Pray that you are among them.

Happy Monday, everyone. 😉

Read Full Post »

Killing America’s brands, one lousy C.E.O. at a time.

How “Black Widow” C.E.O.s and Caretaker Managers are choking the life out of the world’s most profitable brands:

Fellow brand guy Rob Frankel and I don’t always agree on everything, but more often than not, he an I find ourselves on the same side of the fence, shaking our heads at corporate execs who somehow manage to choke the life out of an otherwise solid brand. They are the corporate world’s equivalent of the proverbial black widows – women who marry for money, kill their husband, and then move on to their next prey.

This isn’t to say that black-widow CEOs purposely kill the brands they are hired to manage, but it would be a stretch to pretend that they have any brand’s best interest in mind: By the time these guys leave – usually after just a few years – the size of their golden parachute seems to be in direct proportion to the damage they have caused.

The worst part about this is that in spite of their horrendous track record, they keep getting hired to run more companies and brands into the ground with the efficiency of an enraged elephant trying to muscle its way out of a porcelain store.

Rob Frankel has some pretty interesting things to say about this phenomenon, and looks at it through the cultural prism of the Three Generations of Wealth principle, in which the first generation creates the fortune, the second generation spends it and the third generation loses it. Pretty clever if you ask me.

Per Rob:

Many American brands are victims of third generation “caretaker” managers, who themselves never had to build the very brands they’ve been charged to manage. Living off the fat of the land, they’re complacent managers who fear innovation and risk, the type that figure their brand will always be there, because it was always there for their fathers and grandfathers.

The trouble is it doesn’t work that way. The grandfathers who built the brands knew the power of a brand. They knew how to constantly build and reinforce their value. Caretaker managers, however, spend more time on the golf course than they do building brand value. In fact, most CXOs don’t truly understand what a brand is, let alone how to build its value. And so while the caretaker managers might hold hands, close their eyes and wish real hard, their brands continue to wither from neglect, with market shares shrinking into a mere slivers of what they once were.

But it isn’t enough to just point a finger at ineffective CEOs without looking at exactly HOW they are destroying the brands they should be elevating. There is a method to the madness, and here it is (in its simplest form). Again from Rob:

Year One: Get hired by suckers whose company is hemorrhaging cash and market share to the point that their desperation clouds their good business sense. The Caretaker uses this first year to make promises and “assess the situation.”

Year Two: Caretaker begins sniffing out departments where he can “cut costs”, drastically slashes budgets and tosses out the very employees who built the company. By cutting costs, he hopes to “restore profitability.”

(And on paper, it works.)

Year Three: The costs are cut, but the Caretaker has done nothing to increase revenues. While profits have increased, overall revenue is down and company infrastructure is devastated to the point where any hope of a real financial recovery is gone. But the Caretaker Manager doesn’t care: His deal is done. And by the time the folks who hired him find out how much damage he’s caused, it’s too late. His recruiter has already landed him at another company where he can do the same damage all over again.

The key element of this process is obviously Year Three: a) The black widow CEO has done nothing to increase revenue, and b) the company infrastructure has been severely weakened.Not a good combination.

By then, customer support (one of a company’s most important brand-reinforcing touch-points) has been outsourced, most departments are stretched well beyond their operational limits, and most of the company’s true management talent has left. Meanwhile, because little or no work has been done to enhance or even maintain the brand’s relevance, customers have started to shift en masse to competitors more concerned with creating value than cutting corners… err… costs.

Rob goes on to cite Chrysler’s choice to hire controversial serial CEO Robert Nardelli to take the helm as an example of this process:

According to the Los Angeles Times:

In Nardelli, Chrysler is getting a former senior General Electric Co. executive, who was both credited with overhauling purchasing and technology systems at Home Depot and widely criticized for pay and severance packages seen as excessive.

“This is an interesting choice, and I’m somewhat perplexed by it,” said Erich Merkle, an auto industry analyst with IRN Inc. “There are still things that Chrysler needs long term and I’m not sure Nardelli can provide them.”

Right. Things like vision, direction, purpose or clarity, perhaps? Heck, anything that even closely resembles a strategy beyond growth through acquisitions and further rounds of cost-cutting?

Now we’re on to something.

It should be said that Nardelli’s current annual salary at Chrysler is exactly $1, so kudos to him for at least playing along with Washington theatrics surrounding the spectacular bailout his company is currently benefiting from (especially considering his past history with grossly excessive executive compensation.) That being said, given his history, how can board of directors look at a guy like Nardelli and think “wow, this guy can really turn around Chrysler and get us to the top again?” His track record and tactics are pretty clear.

Is there a forest vs. trees problem going in in the corporate world, or are the boards that appoint these black-widow CEOs that clueless? (The question is not rhetorical. I really want to know.

How to spot a caretaker manager posing as a leader: Look for short-term P&L mirages instead of actual growth:

Something to think about: Efficiency is nice when you’re a CFO or a COO. A CEO’s job is considerably more complex than just hacking off unprofitable divisions and cutting costs to the point of operational anemia, however. (See Year Two, above.) Would Nardelli make a great COO? With the right CEO looking over his shoulder, probably. But CEO? Not on your life. Yet here we are, watching Nardelli accelerate Chrysler’s nose-dive by favoring short term profitability through aggressive cost-cutting over actually rebuilding a limping company and the brand that once made it successful. Sure, efficiency and profitability may look great on paper, but the end result, when not tied to long term strategies is almost always disastrous.

And if you don’t believe that a CEO can resurrect a company by understanding and embracing the value of its brand, just look at Steve Jobs and Apple. Consider for a second what happened to Apple when he left, and how his return a) brought Apple back from the brink, and b) turned it into the powerhouse that it is today. Did Steve Jobs rebuild Apple by cost-cutting and focusing on short term profitability, or did he set out to rebuild Apple’s relevance and culture of innovation again? (No need to think about the answer. It’s a rhetorical question.)

Now compare a black widow CEO like Nardelli and a visionary CEO like Jobs. What kind of CEO builds powerhouse brands and what kind sinks them? (Last I checked, Apple wasn’t applying for bailout money.)

Why is this a relevant topic this week? I’m sure you can draw your own conclusions, but the main catalyst for this post was Rick Wagoner’s precipitous removal from the helm of General Motors over the weekend… and subsequent appointment of GM’s current COO (and former CFO) Fritz Henderson. Now… I don’t know Mr. Henderson personally and haven’t followed is 25 year career with GM, so my questions about this choice as a replacement are completely uneducated and skewed towards today’s argument, but hear me out for a second.

Given what we have discussed today and what we know of corporate America’s habit of rewarding CXOs for short-sighted performance rather than long term growth, ask yourselves for a moment if the best possible choice to lead an ailing company (like GM) is really its former CFO/COO.

Do cost cutting and operational efficiency REALLY impact revenue, or do they mostly help the company’s P&L look good while sales continue their downward trend?

Can a 25-year insider/veteran of GM who has contributed during his entire career to the downfall of a brand really bring new vision and infuse new life into a dying company?

As I was researching this topic for today’s post, I happened to zero-in on a comment Edmunds.com’s Chief exec. Jeremey Anwyl today in an AP story on GM’s move, which he called out as little more than “political theater.”

I couldn’t agree more.

The point here being: Sure, Wagoner being pushed out was a good move considering Chrysler’s horrendous performance and complete lack of direction, but Henderson’s appointment basically negates any kind of forward momentum or positive outcome for GM. He is just another GM exec with absolutely nothing new to bring to the table.

It doesn’t matter how deeply GM and Chrysler cut costs. If neither company focuses on rebuilding their brand(s), they will not be able to rebuild their revenue stream. Period.

More of the same breeds more of the same breeds more of the same, and so on:

Case in point: The AP story makes some good observations about Wagoner’s success in cutting costs and improving operational efficiency at GM, but looking at the big picture, what did the cost-cutting really accomplish?

$82 Billion (yes, with a “B”) in losses in the last four years. That’s what.

Let me say that again: $82,000,000,000 in losses in just four years. (Source)

Does this sound like GM was moving in the right direction with the cost cutting and “restructuring?” In that time period, did GM’s brand as a whole capture our attention the way BMW, VW or Lexus did?

If you find my argument a little weak, ask David Cole (chairman of the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor, Michigan) what he thinks:

“I don’t think you would see any shift or significant change at all with Rick’s leaving. I think the course that they’re on, they’re on.”

You don’t say. Yet Senator Charles Schumer’s (D-NY) comments on the change indicate how deeply rooted our general cluelessness about the value of true leadership and objective change really are:

“Given the history, a change in management could hardly hurt and might do some good.”

No, Senator. Change for the sake of change is just noise. Replacing a caretaker manager with another caretaker manager from the same management culture is not an improvement. It is nothing more than political gesticulation and pointless churn. What we do need, however, is fresh talent at GM. What we need are executives who want to rebuild the GM brand and will attack that task with the passion of a true believer.  We need people who understand GM’s importance to the automotive industry and their millions of fans – both in the US and around the world – and will map out a future for it rooted in clarity of purpose. That kind of leadership looks a lot more like Steve Jobs, Richard Branson, Yves St. laurent and John Mackey than Robert Nardelli, Rick Wagoner, Fritz Henderson or Edward Liddy.

Stop mistaking managers for leaders. Please, for the love of god, learn the difference between the two.

The proverbial fork in the road: How companies choose to either succeed or fail:

Ironically, GM currently owns some of the world’s most more recognizable automotive brands, with Cadillac, Saab, Hummer, Chevrolet and Saturn making the list… So it shouldn’t be all that hard for GM to make a comeback… But unless it learns to embrace the power of the brands it depends on to remain profitable, it doesn’t stand a chance.

(As a taxpayer,) what I would like to hear from Mr. Henderson is a statement affirming a new direction in GM’s strategy. Specifically, one that leverages what Cadillac, Saturn and Hummer have managed to accomplish all on their own: Create unique cultural niches for themselves and build loyal brand followings. Cadillac especially, having reinvented itself over the last decade, could help ailing brands like Buick, Chevrolet and GMC find renewed purpose in a market saturated with banality, derivative designs and watered-down identities. In short, what I would like to hear Mr. Henderson say is that the lesson Cadillac learned in the course of its own successful reinvention will be applied across all GM brands effective immediately. That GM, while continuing its commitment to reducing costs where it makes sense will shift its focus back to making cars that people actually want to drive. That GM as a whole has a plan to completely revamp its design and Q.A. departments (please hire some Germans already) in the next six months. That it will immediately end production of all models with notably low market share. And most importantly, that it will actively seek to bring fresh executives to the table. Not US automaker flunkies from the same stale pool that got GM and Chrysler to the brink (like himself), but professionals from other industries with a talent for actually developing culture-affecting products and building brands from the ground up. And that – to that end – he plans to voluntarily step down from his role as C.E.O. sometime in the next year to give them room to work their magic. I want deadlines, direction, purpose and unwavering commitment. What I don’t want is more hollow posturing and vague rehashes of already failed strategies.

Sadly, hollow posturing is probably all we can hope for at this stage in the game. Even the White House seems content to let heads roll at GM and Chrysler without demanding real change. As a result, what we are likely to hear from both auto giants over the next few months will be the same old song that got us here to begin with: More cost-cutting. More attempts to return to short-term “profitability” by hacking their companies into strategic and operational impotence. More bean-counter promotions to leadership positions. More lame duck partnerships. More requests for bailout money. In short, more of the same. Why? Because expecting true leadership from caretaker managers trying to hold on to their jobs in a tanking economy is about as realistic as expecting my chihuahuas to start quoting Buddha, Mohammad and Ghandi in their native Spanish. (Though sadly, the latter is actually more realistic.)

The most likely outcome of this ongoing corporate FAIL will be an endless circus of caretaker managers taking turns playing C.E.O. musical chairs while their once mighty companies burn to cinders around them.

Let’s face facts: Any idiot with a calculator and a spreadsheet can cut costs to make his P&L look good at the end of the month. You don’t need 25 years of executive experience at the Fortune 500 level to master that little trick. So what exactly qualifies executives like Nardelli, Wagoner and Henderson to run (heck, to rescue) companies like Chrysler and GM?

The question I would like to ask these guys is simple: When you run out of costs to cut, then what? (Besides jumping ship or asking for bailout money?)

Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

Repeat after me: No major brand ever rose to a position of market dominance by focusing on cutting costs.

Apple. BMW. Starbucks (in its heyday). Microsoft. Cartier. Disney. Newman’s Own. Michelin. Breitling. Cervelo. Oakley. Hermes. Pixar. Assos. The list goes on.

Is it really so hard to grasp these simple concepts? That P&L manipulation through chronic cost-cutting is no kind of strategy at all? That preserving the health of your revenue stream trumps all other business functions? That everything you do in a company should be done with one objective in mind: To create customers? That a C.E.O. can’t just focus on the dashboard or the rear-view mirror while he drives his company forward?

This really isn’t rocket science. Is it?

Is it?

Help me understand how we got here. Two ways you can do that:

1. Be sure to add to the already fantastic series of comments published below.

2. Continue the discussion anytime by engaging me an fellow commenters on Twitter. Use the hashtag #brandbuilder_CEO in your Twitter comment. (You can then follow the threads by clicking here.)

Thanks for bearing with a particularly long post today. You guys are good sports. 😉

Read Full Post »

Flashback to December 2005: A letter to Ford

I found this in the vault and thought it was worth dusting off… since it’s still pretty relevant three whole years almost to the day since I wrote it – back in December 2005. (Note: Some of the links are so old that I’ve removed them.) Enjoy:

The slogan used to go “Have you driven a Ford lately?”

Well… I have, unfortunately. I find myself behind the wheel of a Ford vehicle several times per year. Rentals, mostly. My opinion of Ford vehicles isn’t great. It isn’t great at all. As a matter of fact, unless Ford starts making better cars (or making cars better), I will never, ever buy a Ford, no matter how cheap. If someone gives me a Ford, I will immediately trade it in for another brand.

And I guess a lot of people feel the same way because despite a huge advertising budget and aggressive price cuts earlier this year, a lot of people aren’t buying Ford vehicles either.

So now, Ford is cutting 30,000 jobs.

Strangely, you won’t find that little bit of info on Ford’s website. Instead, you’ll read that Texans Love Ford Trucks. You’ll learn that Mustang pedal cars make kids happy. You’ll learn what conferences and trade shows Ford will be attending next. More importantly, you will finally find out who that girl in the Mercury commercials is.

If you really dig, you’ll also get to read a tiny little cryptic blurb about how Ford is all about inclusion and diversity, citing Volvo’s advertising in gay and lesbian markets.

Huh?

Oh yeah, in case you hadn’t heard, Ford has just agreed to pull all of its advertising from gay and lesbian magazines in response to a boycott launched by the American Family Association. The ads were specific to the Land Rover and Jaguar brands. (Thanks to Emergence Marketing for reporting this today.)

So… Let’s recap: 30,000 jobs are going to get sacked because sales are down. Meanwhile, Ford decides to pull out of lucrative markets because of pressure from a gay-bashing religious group.

Brilliant. Just brilliant.

How about this, Ford:

1) Start making better cars. Not more expensive cars, but better cars. Cars that don’t fall apart. Cars with comfortable seats. Cars with decent suspension. Cars that people will actually enjoy driving. It’s called design. The Japanese know about design. So do the Europeans. You can learn it too. (There is life beyond giant pickup trucks.)

Maybe once you make your cars cool, reliable and fun to drive, people will start buying them again.

Don’t believe me? Look at the Hummer brand. What could be more American in spirit than that giant military-like gasoline-guzzling tank on wheels? Even with gasoline prices hitting $3 per gallon and doomsday reports of impending fuel shortages, Hummer vehicles are selling like hotcakes.

Tell me design and passion don’t drive sales. Tell me the car market is all about pricepoints. Just try to make that argument stick.

Make better cars and your sales will increase. Period. End of story.

2) If a significant percentage of gay and lesbian drivers buy Land Rovers and Jaguars, don’t do something stupid to alienate them… Like pull your ads out of their magazines. What are you thinking?!

What’s next? Will a boycott from other right wing groups make you pull ads from magazines geared towards ethnic minorities? How about Jewish and Muslim publications? How about European markets while you’re at it? (Those pesky French people keep saying bad things about us after all. Long live the Freedom Fries, right?)

Why don’t you start targeting white, Christian, straight red-blooded Americans exclusively?

Seriously, Ford. What’s up? It’s like the lights are on but nobody’s home. Do you need a quick lesson in leadership?

30,000 jobs down the toilet, and your next move is to send away a healthy chunk of what few customers you hadn’t yet chased away? Why?

Couldn’t you have told the American Family Association that Ford will advertise to anyone it wants to? Couldn’t you have told them that you will advertise in whatever publications you see fit? Couldn’t you have told them to just mind their own business?

Perhaps you could invite their leadership to start designing your cars. Perhaps you should begin to seek their approval before launching your next ad campaign. (Is it still okay to advertise during the Superbowl? Can you still advertise in anti-family magazines like Esquire, GQ or Cosmo?)

*sigh*

Ford, you’ve hit an all-time low this week. You really have.

Let me let you in on a little secret: The reason that foreign auto makers are kicking your butt is because –

1) They make the best car possible for the money. You make the most easily manufacturable car for the money.

2) Their attention to detail is evident in their design. Your attention to detail is almost an oxymoron.

3) Japanese cars are fun to drive. Yours aren’t. (And no, the Mustang isn’t all that great, and it doesn’t corner very well.)

4) Japanese engines. Ford engines. End of story.

5) Japanese car makers will advertise and sell to whomever loves their cars, regardless of gender, race, religion or sexual orientation.

I’m sorry to say this, Ford, but I’m not sure that you have much of a strategy anymore. Tell me, what are you about? What’s your purpose? Tell me why I should buy one of your products? Tell me why I should choose you over anyone else? (Besides the whole “buy American” thing.)

BMW’s X5 is made in America, just fifteen miles from my house. Japanese automakers are employing thousands right here in the US. Buying their cars is buying American.

Time for some leadership changes at Ford, methinks.

Related posts: Tom Peters’ “The View From Home“

Definitely read the Tom Peters post. It’s excellent.

And we wonder how we got here.

Read Full Post »

The expert fallacy

Yesterday, we talked a little bit about the value of talent vs. the value of experience, and we established, thanks to Shunryu Suzuki, that “in the beginner’s mind, there are many possibilities, but in the expert’s mind, there are few”. Today, let’s look at experience a little bit – particularly the concept of experts. Here’s a little something from David Armano:

If the “expert” label gets thrown my way, I don’t give it much thought. It’s just a label that helps people wrap their heads around something abstract to make it more concrete. Sometimes we need to categorize in order to make sense of things.

The thing is, I’ll never see myself as an expert.

You might think that’s humbling. I only wish I were that humble. I’ll never see myself as an expert, because once you’ve convinced yourself that you are one—that’s the moment your ability to see the world differently begins to decline. Expert eyes know what to look for. They can also be the eyes that miss the most obvious insights which lead to the most elegant of solutions.

Read Dave’s entire post here, and watch this killer presentation.

My kids aren’t experts at anything, yet the complete absence of bullshit inside their brains allows them to see things more clearly than industry execs with 30 years of experience, and spell out the obvious better than any contributing analyst on MSNBC, CNN and Fox News combined. Go figure. The wisdom of children, which we have a tendency to patronize a little too much these days, is often as surprisingly spot-on as their honesty is refreshing. This leads me to believe that perhaps the least valuable thing anyone can be is an expert. At anything.

Here’s more from David:

I believe that when you know too much—it takes away from your creativity and your ability to see things from different perspectives. I’ve been thinking about this quite it bit. I’ve been having mixed feelings regarding the specialized degrees that are being marketed to us, promising to turn us into design thinkers, creative strategists etc. Steve Jobs, the original design thinker was a college drop out. What does this tell us?

I’m happy to see the business world take creative problem solving seriously and I’m certainly not against higher education or any of the new programs. But I’m also wary of what happens when we perceive ourselves as experts who have been trained in the black art of [insert profession here].

The most brilliant ideas I’ve seen in the market, as well as some of the most inspired designs and solutions I have been fortunate to be a part of, didn’t come from a roundtable of experts with a century of combined specialized experience. They came from the most junior people on the team. They came from every day users. They came more from inspired play than nose-to-the-grindstone work. It’s almost a cliche these days, yet it is still the exception rather than the rule.

Don’t believe me? Okay, think about this: Ten years ago, the expert was Nescafe, not Starbucks. Look around. How valuable is expertise these days? The business world is changing so fast, anyone who takes the time to become an expert at anything is bound to be outpaced inside of 6 months. Unless you’re an expert in sub-Saharan survival or antique typewriter repair, you’re pretty much done for.

Ask me how many PR “experts” with decades of practical experience I know who have absolutely no clue how to use social media (or why this doesn’t bode well for their “expert” status).

How many very well paid “experts” thought they had it all figured out on Wall Street and Detroit just twelve short months ago?

Who are the experts now?

Why in the world would anyone want to be caught dead anywhere near that kind of label?

So… Again, the argument of experience vs. talent yesterday. Worth talking about with your friends and colleagues next time you’re out having drinks… or coffee… or croissants.

Stay Hungry. Stay Foolish.

– Steve Jobs

Next time an HR manager tells you that you didn’t get the job because you don’t have enough experience I guess they would have preferred more “expertise”), do me a favor: Try not to laugh.

Have a great Thursday, everyone. 🙂

Read Full Post »

The Social Media Apocalypse is here!

As my good friend Phil Yanov asked me rhetorically last week: “What were all of these self-professed social media experts doing two years ago?”

(What… all 16 million of them?)

Let me think… Oh yeah, they were word-of-mouth marketing experts, weren’t they? Or were they viral marketing experts? I forget.

Don’t get me wrong: I’m pretty psyched that social media tools and channels are finally getting a lot of mainstream attention, but the SocMed “expert” epidemic is raging completely out of control. I haven’t been bombarded with this much bullshit since male enhancement spammers reached critical mass back in 2003.

If you want to talk to real Social Media practitioners who can actually help you, look no further than these folks:

Amber Naslund

Mack Collier

Francois Gossieaux

Chris Brogan

Valeria Maltoni

(Yeah, there are many more, but this list is a good start. And if you can’t afford their services, they’ll hook you up with someone solid and reputable who can actually help you, not just cash your checks and run.)

It’s hard to tell the real thing from the posers these days, so BE CAREFUL whose services you retain. Just because a Marketing firm or ad agency claims to be in the Social Media sphere doesn’t mean they actually are. (Odds are that they aren’t.) Anyone with access to Google can pass for an expert these days, especially if there’s money in it for them. Don’t fall into that trap.

One last piece of advice: Next time anyone introduces themselves as a social media expert, do what the rest of us do: RUN!

Have a great Wednesday, everyone! ;D

Read Full Post »

Robert Killick on the value of risk and true entrepreneurship.

Robert Killick on the need for intellectual curiosity and courage in the face of “unknowns” in today’s business leaders:

Risk was once seen as a catalyst for competitiveness, innovation and change in enterprise culture. Now it is seen as a negative barrier to be avoided with all sorts of precautionary measures. ‘Risk consciousness’ is the order of the day, but the preference to always dig up the dark side of humanity betrays a lack of faith in human reason. Curiosity and foolhardiness are often derided as irresponsible and egotistical traits, but the great heroes of the past have taken personal risks that benefit all of us.

Today, research and experimentation that does not have a measurable ‘positive effect’ is seen as irresponsible. Yet it is precisely through experimentation, risk – and, yes, mistakes – that some of the major scientific breakthroughs and technological inventions have come about. Without risky experimentation, and without individuals willing to take those risks in the pursuit of knowledge, we wouldn’t have aeroplanes, penicillin, MRI scans or X-rays.

The ability to handle risk – though technology, human ingenuity, reason and resilience – is a measure of modernity and it can only be achieved through more experimentation, not less. The hard won freedoms to creative expression, communication and to technological innovation should be treasured, and the twenty-first century should be when we take them even further.

Risk-adverse/risk-paralyzed leaders aren’t leaders at all. At best, they are followers promoted or appointed to positions they should have had enough common sense, integrity and professionalism to turn down.

Fact: Leaders “lead.” They take their companies in a specific direction and make sure that course corrections occur as needed along the way. Standing still, ignoring emerging market trends, rewarding business-as-usual strategies, waiting for competitors to make a move before testing the waters, or building protective walls around organizations are not examples of leadership.

No one is advocating making rash decisions of course, but in order for companies to be successful, their leaders must possess certain key personality traits – among them the essential combination of vision, courage and an unbreakable pioneering streak.

Bear this in mine when placing your bets on a company, new boss or potential candidates for an executive-level position.

Have a great week, everyone!

Read Full Post »

On Selling Marketing Short: Fixing the R.O.I. void

http://wray-mccann.com

Interesting post by JP Voilleque over at Marketing 2.0 this week about the use of mythology and archetypes when creating narratives for brands, but also (and more importantly) the generational roadblocks standing in the way of smart marketing being adopted by conservative companies.

Both of these topics are dear to my heart: The first because tapping into hard-coded symbolism and archetypes we project onto our various mythologies to make sense of the world can be the difference between an organization becoming little more than a company with a logo and that same company becoming a global lifestyle brand. The game here being one of identity and purpose, if a brand can tap into the collective need for a particular archetype, it can become a vessel for a culture’s very specific aspirations.

Nike is a perfect example of this type of exercise, from its choice of name to the way its brand is communicated via its many marketing channels. (Tell me Nike ads aren’t designed specifically to inspire the champion in you.)

The second is also crucial, especially in this economy, because it strikes the heart of Marketing’s Achilles’ heel: The seeming absence of R.O.I. (Return On Investment) at least in the minds of so many first wave baby-boomer executives. I have run into this my entire career, and I have to confess that has been one of the most frustrating of hurdles: Most business leaders simply have no faith in Marketing. They don’t see it as an effective business function, they see it as an expense rather than an investment, and more often than not, marketing takes on the form of a formulaic, uninspired afterthought that barely ever ventures beyond the stale world of “marketing deliverables” like brochures, websites, mailers and print ads. Worse yet, these deliverables are often utterly ineffective in both design and purpose, adding insult to injury in the world of pragmatic, no-nonsense business execs. This is not good, and it needs to start changing immediately.

Here’s what JP has to say:

I have a special place in my heart for resistance to change. It is endearing, like sepia-tone photos of families in Wild West garb. But when it comes to grappling with network externalities, it loses that cuteness and becomes a real impediment to rapid adoption of effective messaging. The people who are ordering the message don’t think it “belongs” in the Web 2.0 universe except in very narrowly sliced, buzzword-laden places that are no less guaranteed to provide a return than the entire space.

[…]

We’re talking for the most part about first wave baby boomers, but in some cases we’re discussing some “silent generation” folks. So depending on circumstances, these are people who are focused on toeing the line, “team play” as art form, and (for the most part) a hierarchical model of career development, decision making, and information processes. The 1984 Apple ad was aimed at/authored by the second wave of the baby boom, the ones that came of age during the sixties, and aggressively anti-hierarchy (though no less hard-working). The roadblock is the first wave. Worse, it’s a committee of them.

Read the entire post here.

Anytime someone talks about archetypes, metaphors and marketing all in the same paragraph, they have my undivided attention. There isn’t enough of this kind of thinking in our industry, and it’s a damn shame because it holds so much power. Unfortunately, the silent generation doesn’t always have time for archetypes, Jungian psychology or for peeling back the layers of mythology-inspired metaphor.

Fact: These guys don’t believe in the value of marketing because no one has ever shown them that it indeed has any value. Too many hacks in this business are content to charge exorbitant fees for deliverables without actually ever working towards actual business and brand-building objectives. (And I won’t even touch the topic of the growing number of internal marketing departments whose staff can’t come up with a single original idea, much less write half a page of decent copy.) Many small marketing and PR firms have thus become little more than job shops where a) the talent and the creative have – over time – slipped to the bottom of the commodity ladder, and b) have completely eliminated the strategic in favor of the tactical (if you can even call it that). This may be a great way to keep paying the bills, but it is no way to inject the true value of marketing into a company that needs it. Enough firms and practitioners do this, and the entire profession soon becomes plagued with low rent hacks selling “marketing” to business folks too busy running their businesses to know any better. This is how the marketing field spent the last three decades losing all credibility and value, bringing us to where we are today: A business world in which the first thing that gets cut during tough economic times is marketing. Bravo.

Incidentally, the one line-item in a business’ budget that should actually increase during difficult economic times is marketing. Why? Because the best time to reach out to your customers and possibly gain market share is precisely when your competitors are retreating. We’re upside-down in this scenario because for the last thirty years, hacks have been dragging this discipline down into the commodity gutter. Enough is enough. We need to get back to business now. And I mean right now, starting with the very same first wave boomers who currently have absolutely zero faith in the discipline.

To these folks, marketing is at best fluff. Pretty fluff, sometimes, but fluff nonetheless. And expensive fluff at that. They reluctantly sign off on brochures, flyers, websites, catalogs and the occasional press release (the latter usually aimed at investors and stakeholders rather than their customers) because they feel that they have to. It’s just a cost of doing business. *sigh* Aside from this expensive exercise in seemingly worthless self promotion (a concept they aren’t particularly comfortable with anyway), marketing seems to be an expense rather than a worthwhile investment. This is the biggest fundamental problem faced by marketing departments and firms today.

Another way to look at it is this: There seems to be little to no measurable ROI from most marketing campaigns or activities.

Chances are that if you are dealing with a CEO who has little faith in marketing, it is because no one has ever shown them the link that exists between real marketing (which reaches far deeper than just messaging), and something as simple as F.R.Y. measurements (Frequency, Yield and Reach), for starters. Forget brand valuation for the first couple of quarters. Don’t even bring it up. Just show them how great marketing can increase their sales through an increase in interactions between their company and its customers, a positive change in the average order size, and/or an increase in net new customers. This is something they understand. This is something that puts food on the table, therefore it is tangible. This is how marketing stops being fluff and starts being valuable. This is how cost becomes benefit. This is how risky expense becomes worthwhile investment.

In order to enable this transition, we need to connect the dots by demonstrating clearly and objectively that marketing drives business growth in a measurable, quantifiable way. Not only that, but your efforts have to show that the return outweighs the investment. Not through bullshit metrics but through measurables that actually show up on the P&L.

You aren’t going to turn the older boomers to pay any attention to quests and archetypes (unless they happen to work at Nike or Jaguar or Starbucks), but you can take these concepts and turn them into what they understand: ROI. Simple Business 101. Common sense cost-benefit data. Period.

Does this put marketing practitioners on the spot? You bet. And it’s about time too.

The shift that needs to occur is simply this: Marketing practitioners need to a) stop behaving like commodities salesmen, and b) (to borrow a phrase from the presidential campaign trail) stop slapping lipstick on a pig.

Our job is not to sell deliverables like websites, catalogs, print ads and clever copy (and especially not the mediocre kind). Our job is to help folks who already spend over 80% of their time running the day to day operations of their business connect that business with the outside world in an effective and extraordinary way. More to the point, our job is to help drive sales, create net new customers, and increase the number of positive interactions between the companies we serve and their growing customer base. Our job is to help delight customers so that they will become a) repeat customers and b) brand ambassadors. Our job is to bring context to products, services and companies’ identities in specific cultural subsets. Our job is to bring companies and “markets” together, which is really to say companies and people.

Summed up, our job is to develop all of the strategies and tactics that help companies find their audience, facilitate the first handshake, and develop lasting, delightful, fiercely loyal relationships with as many great people as possible.

Our job is to do this in a remarkable, memorable, delightful way. Our job, if anything, is to inspire our clients and the people they serve to engage in a relationship which benefits both parties equally, and somehow improves their collective condition in the process. Our job is nothing short of ensuring that the marriage between between them is a great and lasting one.

This is not the sort of thing you entrust to just anyone. Yet too many companies do just that – most of the time because they may not be aware that they have other, better options.

I say enough. Seriously. Enough with uninspired, ineffective mediocrity. Enough with chop-shop marketing. Enough with inexistent (upside-down) R.O.I. Enough with the snake oil bullshit.

Enough.

Not until that first wave of boomer execs start to see that Marketing is as vital to their growth and as worthwhile an investment as an acquisition or product innovation will they be able to connect the dots between marketing activity and simple, bottom-line, black-on-white R.O.I.

It’s time to start cleaning up our industry once and for all, one company at a time. If that’s what it takes, then so be it. I hope you’ll join me in this quest, assuming you aren’t fighting the good fight already.

Have a great Thursday, everyone. 😉

image by Chris Wray-McCann

Read Full Post »

Calling bullshit on "viral". Finally.

A post dear to my heart from Go Big:

Reminds me of this one.

Every time I hear someone use the term “viral marketing,” I cringe. I know it seems like just a word, but I think it’s a concept that misses the mark and perpetuates some half-baked thinking.

I hated the word “viral” the very first time I heard it in the mid 1990s, probably because it made Marketing sound like we were spreading a disease other people had no choice but to spread, too. At the time, the whole “viral marketing” thing got people excited because it used the Internet to cheaply spread crap like Burger King videos or Hotmail invitations. Dance monkeys, dance.

Now that we’ve all been bombarded on the internet, the notion of something being viral is no more special than any other idea or phrase that catches on. That’s just part of Marketing’s job. For over a decade now, Advertising Agencies all over the country have some sort of “Viral Marketing” as part of their plan to try to get us to ask their version of the Subservient Chicken to do something obscene and then laugh about it. We all get a bajillion invitations to try products and there’s an asston of bite-sized digital entertainment gimmicks you can sneeze all over your friends. No question, you can get the word out quickly but spreading your message is a small part of the picture.

I remember sitting in a Jive meeting when someone mentioned viral marketing and then in the very next meeting engineers were talking about the importance of product adoption. The word “adoption” struck me. Why is spreading Marketing a disease but spreading product usage like bringing in a stray dog? Shouldn’t we be pushing for Adoptive Marketing? Marketing that people want, that leads to products people want? Viral Marketing is merely the quick transaction of ideas. But if no connection is made to the product, the Marketing can (at best) only make an ephemeral nick in brand perception. Adoptive Marketing can be just as “viral” but is so closely connected to the product that if the idea catches on, so does the product. In fact, the product is built to be remarkable and to be the primary Marketing engine. For people to spread Adoptive Marketing it means that within the product and the Marketing they:

– Discover recurring personal significance
– Control their own participation
– Believe it improves their situation

People adopt things they have an emotional connection to. They like it and/or it helps them. Adoptive Marketing is dependent on the product. Ask any Marketer who has the best Marketing and the first company they think of is Apple. But Apple’s ads only work because their product and retail experience backs up the Marketing. Apple practices Adoptive Marketing. The Marketing is the product. The product is the Marketing. You want to talk about the iPhone. You want to use the iPhone. You want to watch the Ads. It’s a social object. You care. You choose. It improves your situation. It’s feels unique, even if it’s not. When you’re successful with Adoptive Marketing you’ve earned the right to be an Organic Meme. Screw being viral.

The problem is most products suck. If your baby’s ugly, go market something you believe in. Or it’s time to sit down with the product and service group and have a heart-to-heart. Yes, I’m sure it’s not that easy but we can’t fix it for you. Perhaps you can think around your product to create a social-cause initiative that makes people love your ice cream, batteries or dryer sheets. No amount of dancing babies or viral videos will cover up the fact your product is boring.

Read the rest of the post here.

Read Full Post »

Excuses, excuses.

Real excuses from real companies on why their earnings didn’t meet estimates in the last quarter of 2006 – by Julie Teninbaum (Portfolio.com).

Classic!

To leave comments (and read previous, related posts) hit the brandbuilder’s main page.

Read Full Post »