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 »

Who exactly is driving the Social Media bus in the Enterprise space?

I dig Jeremiah Owyang’s blog. The guy is wicked smart, usually spot-on with everything he says, and when it comes to digital media analysis, I can’t think of anyone who does a better job (Forrester Research really scored when they landed him).  But last week, one of his posts stopped me dead in my tracks – not because he got something wrong, but because he got something so painfully right: Large consulting firms (as in the “Big Four”) are joining the social media gold rush and already looking to plant their victory flags in the enterprise space. (My words, not Jeremiah’s.)

What that version of Social Media strategy, implementation, training, execution and measurement will look like is everyone’s guess. But before we get too far into this discussion, watch this little video to get into the spirit of today’s topic:

Here’s a link to Jeremiah’s post about Social Media and the enterprise space: Click here.

The part that really jumped out at me was this point:

Large consulting firms are preparing to offer million dollar packages to enterprises for change management and social integration systems.

Incidentally, when I first read that post, I started rapid-fire-DM’ing Jeremiah on Twitter about it, but after a string of about 30 140-character comments, he politely suggested that I stop blowing up his inbox and just write a blog post about it – so here we are, and as you can tell from my relaxed demeanor in the video, I have chilled a bit about the ramifications of this whole Social Media gold rush debacle.

Even so, for the purposes of this discussion, let’s take a few steps back and put the Social Media bandwagon in perspective for you:

Prologue – Social Media becomes the marketing world’s newest buzzword. Twitter starts to explode. Everyone with half a brain sees the writing on the wall: There is money to be made in Social Media. The gold rush begins.

Phase 1 – Independent business consultants (mostly marketing consultants) start rebranding themselves as “Social Media Consultants” or “Social Media experts.” In some extreme cases, even “Social Media gurus”. They spread like locusts… By November 2008, you can’t throw a cat without hitting at least two or three Social Media experts. The epidemic reaches catastrophic proportions.

Phase 2 – Marketing firms, ad agencies and a few PR outfits start to look into this whole Social Media “thing”. Billings are shrinking and clients are asking “hey, do you guys also do Social Media?” Many of these firms stretch the truth and say “yes”. Agencies and Marketing firms now start billing clients to launch blogs, Twitter pages and Facebook groups with absolutely no concept of what they’re doing. (Overheard in the men’s room: Where does the ad go?” and “How do you write a 140-character press release anyway?”) Web analytics people get brought in to measure clickthroughs, impressions and web traffic from social sites to prove effectiveness. This methodology fails to impress. Ineffective strategic planning, poor execution and a lack of measurement insight result in  Social Media getting a bad rep in the business world.

Phase 3 – Large Consulting firms jump on the Social Media bandwagon. Better late than never, right?  There’s money to be made after all, and since they’realready the experts in everything else, why not Social Media as well? Unfortunately, it isn’t that easy… is it.

And that’s just the rub: How many people in the world really know how to strategize, implement and execute a Social Media program for a company (large or small)? I can think of maybe 50-100 in the US, and that’s stretching it.*

Now tell me how many people in the US know how to actually measure the effectiveness of Social Media programs? (Not just impact on X, but actual R.O.I.?) You can probably count them on the fingers of one hand. Maybe two.**

*/**  It won’t stop thousands of people from claiming that they can do it, but we all know where that conversation is going. ‘Nuff said.

So back to my point: If we know pretty much who belongs to the small community of truly Social Media-savvy professionals we just mentioned, and only two or three actually work for the “big four,” then who is putting these million dollar social integration packages together?

Whom within the big four is building these programs?

Whom within the big four is capable of training clients and implementing these programs/packages? Of customizing them for each individual client? For each brand, market,company culture and distinct business objective?

Whom within the big four is capable of executing on any of this? (Listening outposts, Customer Support, customer engagement, online reputation management, blogging, HR, PR, promos, true social web integration, community management, etc.)

Whom among them actually knows how to set up real measurement methodologies that look beyond web analytics? (Back to the R.O.I. discussion again.)

Will it be some guy with a digital communications background who read a few white papers about Social Media and follows a cookie-cutter methodology that a few analysts and MBAs put together, or will it be a team of Social Media-savvy pros with extensive hands-on experience (and a relevant presence) in the Social Media space?

Right now, though the latter would be 1,000 times preferable to the former, it seems pretty unlikely. What seems most likely (unless you guys prove me otherwise) is that the large consulting firms Jeremiah mentions in his post are mostly winging it, just like the rest of the Social Media hacks looking to take advantage of the Social Media gold rush.

If you disagree, that’s perfectly okay. Actually, I hope that you can prove me wrong. This is one of those rare times when I truly hope that I’ve assumed the worst and completely missed the boat. So if you want to prove me wrong, please do – and here’s how: Give me names. Tell me who the big consulting firms have hired to put these packages together and help deploy them for their clients. It’s that simple.

Once we know who they are, my quick little assessment of their “worth” in this space will be simple: Are these people we know? People who actually live and breathe this stuff? People with an ounce of credibility in this space? People who have been doing this in some way shape or form for more than… six months? Not just analysts, mind you (I know some great ones who fit the bill) but practitioners. The folks who actually DO this stuff.

If so, great.

If not, the enterprise space is about to be taken for a very expensive ride… and I don’t think I am alone in thinking that the stakes (economic, professional and contextual) are too high for this sort of nonsense to go unanswered. So… in the event that I am right, that large consulting firms are about to launch blindly and clumsily into the world of Social Media consulting, how do we come to their rescue?

1. How do we make large consulting firms realize that they have a wealth of resources out here in the real world who cold help them actually bring their social integration packages to life?
2. How do we make them understand that it is in their best interest to reach out to many of you and seek your help, advice, insights?
3. How do we give them visibility to who you are and what you have to offer, and give you the kind of access ?
4. How do we bring together large consulting firms with a need for expertise in this field with those of you who have key pieces of the Social Media puzzle they so desperately need to be effective in this space?

Am I being naive? Is this type of logical partnership strategy too much to expect from organizations that aren’t in the habit of asking for help? I don’t think so: We aren’t talking about ERP and CMS here. This isn’t a vendor-driven discussion. This is not about technology or systems integration. This is about something far more organic than that. Change Management and Social Integration don’t quite plug into a company culture as well as conventional enterprise products plug into an IT infrastructure.

So how do we fix this? How do we bring everyone to the table to actually make this work? Do we create yet another conference? Do we set up closed-door meetings with these firms in which we discuss likely candidates with specific skillsets so they can create talent pools for various contracts? Do we create a forum using the various tools at our disposal to discuss issues or trouble-shoot with them? You guys tell me. What do you think?

The forum is all yours.

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 »

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 »

101 Ways To destroy your brand – a primer by Ed Welch

Ed Welch, by way of Seth Godin, brings us these 101 bits of advice that are surefire ways of quickly destroying your brand. (In case you missed the point of the exercise, per John Moore – “Hint: Do the exact opposite”.)

Check out the list (pdf) here.

Among my favorite:

5. “Do everything you can to keep your customers from creating a community. You don’t want them talking to each other.”

8. Make big decisions first – then see how they will impact your customers.

16. Make sure your employees care more about procedures and rules than [about] your customers.

22. Never try to build customer evangelists – mass advertising has always worked better.

24. When your employees are suffering, make sure you know how much fun you’re having playing golf.

32. Call your customers on the phone regularly. People love to be interrupted and coerced into purchasing things they don’t want or need.

40. Be secretive, never transparent – your customers aren’t smart enough to see the real you – don’t worry.

42. Don’t browse the internet – don’t look for what people are saying about your company.

48. When Marketing, shoot for the masses – you know – the biggest audience – like the Superbowl.

55. Don’t share too much information about your company or your products – something bad could happen.

59. Put earnings per share ahead of customer service – EPS makes the world go round – not satisfied customers.

64. Enjoy the status quo of success and keep doing what you’re doing. No need to shake things up.

65. Make sure the people in charge (yes, the executives) have yesterday’s education – there’s nothing new to learn anyway.

66. Don’t listen to employees who have new ideas – those ideas are dangerous and can lead to “problems” – punish those people by calling them trouble-makers.

67. Never leave your executive office – except to attend meetings with other executives.

68. Don’t listen to people who might have a better grasp of the big picture in relation to your company than you have.

71. Only hire big, well known consulting firms to help you. They’re the only people who know anything.

72. Always focus on price and cost – they’re most important – it’s all about the bottom-line.

80. Design your business such that self-serving behavior is rewarded.

84. Use old marketing techniques in a new marketing environment.

85. Always wait until you have a PR crisis before [addressing] the problem.

86. Punish those who challenge the status-quo of your organization.

91. Surround yourself only with people like you – fresh new ideas only cause trouble.

92. Market to a demographic – not a need. Stick to what’s worked in the past – surely it will start working again.

96. Understand that your company is bigger than any changes happening right now. All this new stuff doesn’t apply to you.

97. Cutting costs really is the ONLY answer. Always take the easy way out – cut costs and save your job.

98. Stay in your comfort zone – never try anything new. Why do anything that jeopardizes your great job?

101. Make your customers pay for ice when purchasing tea.

Don’t be that company. Seriously. If you are doing any of this, stop. Stop right now. There are so many better ways of doing business. Especially if you want to develop a real relationship with your customers – the kind of relationship that breeds loyalty, repeat business and resistance to margin-erosion when your competitors try to change the conversation from great service and quality to lowest price. You can do much better. If you are doing these things, don’t you think it’s time you got back on the right path? The path that made you successful in the first place – before you lost your way? The path that makes people actually WANT to do business with you?

If doing the right thing doesn’t tickle your fancy, at least consider the fact that getting back to being the company you could be and should be might just be a question of survival for you. Your competitors are gaining on you as we speak. You aren’t anywhere closer to being #1 in anything these days, are you.

Consider a change in direction, starting with the relationship you have with your employees and your customers. They – not your computers, not your websites, not your Marketing “tools” – are your most important assets. (Treat them accordingly.)

Read Full Post »

Big vs. Small

“So I was wondering, what is that exact point where a company stops caring? Stops paying attention to their customers? Stops with the phenomenal customer service? Is it when they reach a certain sales figure? A certain number of employees?”

These were some of the pertinent questions posed by Brains On Fire’s resident firestarter Spike Jones some time ago.

This is too big a topic to try to cover in only one post, but the least I can do is to try and get the discussion started. Here is a short list of what you might call purple cow killers. These business diseases can strike a perfectly cool little company with quasi-infinite potential, and turn it into a bumbling corporate flunkie faster than you can say “I.P.O.”:

1) Routine

People lose their passion for things they love when those things become routine. Think about it. Your first day at a new job. Your first drive in a new car. The first time you see a good movie. A first kiss. Everything is exciting at first… but then you eventually get jaded. The excitement wanes. You lose some of your passion. Details become someone else’s problem. So do your products. So do your customers. Deny it all you want, it’s true… and it’s inevitable unless you do something about it.

The trick is to keep the fire burning by keeping things fresh. If routine is a passion-killer, then build a corporate ecosystem that actively fights routine. Easier said than done? Nope. Quite the contrary. (But that’s a topic for another day.)

2) Bureaucracy

The bigger you get, the more you start to rely on procedures. The more you start to say things like “no” and “can’t” and “we’ll have to charge you extra for that”. The harder it becomes for the people at the top of your organization to stay in direct contact with their customers. That’s bad. It shouldn’t take thirty minutes for a customer to get a return authorization. It shouldn’t take seven transfers to get a product manager on the phone. Nobody should ever get the runaround. Ever.

Bureaucracies slow things down and build walls between employees and between you and your customers. As you grow, take the time to develop systems that overcome this problem. Again, this isn’t hard, but you can’t let these things fall to chance. You have to be just as proactive in building your company’s structure as you are in building its markets.

Don’t lose sight of the fact that a company isn’t a building or a logo or a set of rules. A company is always, first and foremost, a group of people united to pursue a common interest. And while you may not think of it that way, this applies to your employees as well as your customers. As a business leader, one of your jobs is to make sure these people are all connected. If your organization disconnects them from one another, you are majorly shooting yourself in the foot.

3) Comfort

If you’ve only worked on the agency side of the business, chances are that you’ve never heard these dreaded words: “We’ve been doing things this way for ____ years, and we’ve been successful at it, so there’s no reason to change.”

(Nails on a chalkboard.)

Yeah, well, in the wise words of Jack Spade, “Never believe anything you’ve done is successful.” The minute you do, you’re dead. End of story. In business, getting comfortable = getting lazy.

Reality check: Markets change. Technologies and tastes change. People grow old and younger ones take their place. Renewal = relevance. Even old-school luxury houses like Bentley and Cartier have adapted to new markets. (If you don’t believe me, watch MTV sometime.)

If you don’t constantly question what you could do better or where you might go next, you’re done. Period.

4) Nepotism

It’s natural to want to surround yourself with people you know and trust. It’s another thing altogether to promote buddies and family members to positions they are neither qualified for, nor passionate about.

Furthermore, while surrounding yourself with people who won’t ever challenge you might be a nice ego boost, it is certainly no way to keep your company moving in any kind of direction.

If all your key managers are passionate about are their 401K plans and their annual retreats to Tahiti, then it’s no surprise that your company has lost its focus.

5) Fear

“Show me a guy who’s afraid to look bad, and I’ll show you a guy you can beat every time.” (Lou Brock)

Yep.

The older you get, the less chances you are likely to take with your career. The larger your company is, the less likely you are to risk screwing something up.

Too much to lose, you see.

So you stop taking chances. You start worrying about what your “competitors” are doing. Instead of leading them, you let them lead you. Next thing you know, you’ve exported all of your production power to China, your quality takes a dive, your customer service is anything but, every bit of talent you ever managed to hire has walked out on you, and you find yourself on the losing end of a price war. Other than just plain dishonesty, that’s how great companies fail.

Well, bollocks. Playing it “safe” is the fastest way to screw yourself over. (And your customers.)

If you don’t have the huevos to stretch the boundaries now and again, to be an innovator, a pioneer, and to sometimes be okay with making some people really hate your latest product, then you need to find another occupation. Being a leader isn’t about staying put. It’s about… well, leading.

6) Denial

Most companies who don’t get it think that they do get it. That’s the tragedy. Once your distribution channels are well-developed, once you have thousands of active accounts, once you’ve been a market leader for twenty, thirty, forty years, the sheer momentum of your growth can carry you into another decade or two. As long as your growth closely matches whatever opportune economic indicator you are following, things might look pretty decent.

You might be under the delusion that you have it all figured out.

So what if you haven’t actually spoken to a customer in twenty years? So what if you don’t even bother to use your own products anymore? So what if you’ve chased away companies that could have become your partners in a number of cool ventures, and they went to your competitors instead? So what if your best people are quitting, one after the other? So what if you have absolutely no idea what people are saying about your products, about your customer service, about your company, about your leadership?

No news is good news, right?

Right?

*sigh*

How do we end up in sad little places like this? Really. You’d think that by now, we’d ALL know better. Tsk.

Before I get back to work, I’ll leave you with another Jack Spade favorite:

“The bigger you get, the smaller you should act.”

Every C.E.O. on the planet should be required to recite that line a hundred times every morning before they even get to their desk. (Let me propose a UN resolution. Do I hear a yay?)

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

Read Full Post »

The would-be emperors’ old clothes hit Cannes

This, from AdPulp‘s David Burn:

“Scott Donaton, Publisher of Advertising Age, wanted sparks to fly from the panel he moderated in Cannes last week. Instead, he could barely muster enough smoke to smudge an industry wallowing in denial.

‘Here’s what we learned at the high-powered Cannes Debate panel on agency reinvention, which I moderated during last week’s International Advertising Festival: next to nothing.

‘Here’s what that means: The ad business has a bigger problem than it realizes. Because its leaders refuse to share real learnings and best practices, or to discuss the frustrations they face in reinventing their legacy businesses, there’s little chance of harnessing their collective wisdom to benefit the industry. Which means each player within it has to keep trying to figure it out on their own. That’s a shame.’

I can’t help but smile at this scenario. We work in an industry dedicated to passing off utter bullshit as something wholesome and worthy of the customer’s time. Then we go to fancy gatherings in France to celebrate our best bullshit from the preceeding year. Meanwhile the emperor stands alone and naked. Personlly, I’m glad. The brave and the few will move forward from this low point and create better work. As it should be. As for the rest, who really cares?”

Pow. Which raises a pretty serious question I find myself asking on a quasi-daily basis: How do you change a culture (within a company or an entire industry) that a) doesn’t want to change, or b) knows it should change but isn’t willing to actually do what it takes to make it happen?

I am reminded of the old saying: “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.”

*sigh*

Read Full Post »