Upheavals

Flagging the issue

This morning, on our national day, I chime in with my views on how we might approach resolving our national flag debate . I really like Gren’s points about why the fern might suit us as a national sporting symbol, but lacks the back-story and arguably the depth to represent us a national symbol.

POSTED: Saturday, 6 February 2010

 

What do you really want from your innovation programmes?

Search engines are an example of redundant excellence. Anyone can search. For anything. And once, when the internet was a big, expanding and mysterious mass, that was enough. It was exciting just to see what showed up - right or wrong, good or bad. And to witness the sheer volume of possibilities.

But the challenge now is to be able to operate a successful find engine. Because finding is the real determinant of success. If I search but don’t find, there are two results, both of which are undesirable - the first is I’ve lost (in the sense that I didn’t find what I was looking for); the second is that I’ve wasted time, which might make me less inclined to try next time.

Search is actually just a process - but it’s a process built around trying to do something. Find is an outcome. And it may or may not be what the seeker thought they were searching for. That’s because “find” is also highly subjective. Success is far from absolute. One person’s find is another person’s disappointment.

So it seems to me that the next challenge for Google, Bing et al is not just more intelligent technology, it’s more empathetic technology - judged not just by what it can deliver, but by what it can make the seeker feel about what is delivered to them.

Expand that premise and you get to this. Innovation programmes should focus on advancing relationships not just products. In other words, their premise should be emotional not just practical. Don’t just make it faster, better, more reliable - because those changes are quickly matchable. Change how people respond, not just what they can do. Surprise them - in a good way.

Continuous improvement in most industries is like searching. It’s a process that masquerades as the goal. But the real finds are the things that dramatically increase inclination - the changes that motivate your customers to give you sustainable, proud and profitable loyalty.

The contrast is as stark as tinker vs touch.

Which are you funding? Improvements or surprises?

POSTED: Saturday, 16 January 2010

 

The new CEO?

No surprises that Apple was named Brand of the Decade by Adweek. But an important insight in the accompanying write-up: “Most brands are run by committee, but this one is the embodiment of a living, breathing person … Of course it helps when you're a brilliant marketer who happens to be the CEO.”

Perhaps it shouldn’t be a matter of coincidence. Perhaps the most important criteria for being CEO should be that you are a proven marketer as well as an excellent leader.

Markets change. Why shouldn’t roles?

POSTED: Wednesday, 16 December 2009

 

Applicability

James Surowiecki writing in the New Yorker makes an important point about what may happen to Woods’ bankability.

As he points out: “the scandal may well narrow his appeal, turning him from someone whose virtues seemed relevant to many fields of work into someone whose virtues apply mainly to golf …“

There’s little doubt that Tiger Woods will be back. That’s not the issue. Surowiecki’s point is - not if, but where?

Great pitchmen and women don’t always die. After the scandal, there’s almost always a comeback. And yet, for all the hoopla that a return generates, the once-lauded seldom seem as relevant as they once seemed. In the interim, something in the public imagination has been lost.

And it is this. What they once stood for just doesn’t seem quite so important, so applicable, so invincible, so utterly desirable anymore.

POSTED: Tuesday, 15 December 2009

 

Sorry seems to be the easiest word

[Update: Seems even Tiger Woods must break his silence and respond, even if it is only to announce that he is walking away "indefinitely".]

Malcolm McLaren always had a great get-out-of-jail card for every outrage committed by the Sex Pistols. Every time, the punk four would do something shocking, he would dismiss the outrage with “boys will be boys”. That works when you’re the Sex Pistols.

You get away with abysmal behaviour too when you’re Gordon Ramsay (after the mandatory display of contriteness). Because a large chunk of his brand reputation is built on being outrageous. And outrage for a bad boy brand is really just a brand extension. So you say something very rude and undeserved, then say sorry, and you’re back in business - with the added bonus of a reputation for being even more rude than you already had.

It doesn’t work though when your reputation is built on being nice. So, in the case of Tiger Woods, alleged dalliance is not something that is quite so easily dismissed.

Recently, someone asked me whether they thought Mr Woods would survive the scandal of 11 alleged affairs and counting.

To me, scandal is not the issue - because it implies moral judgment. And survivability is not necessarily directly dependent on morality. For a billion-dollar sportsman, the make-or-break factor is bankability. Can his sponsors still make money off him? As long as they perceive Woods is bankable, he’ll be fine. The moment his bankability is compromised however, there could be a real issue. And in that sense, he would probably face a similar public dilemma that had no moral aspect - he’s not the man we thought he was - if he were to have a really bad run on the course.

That though is not the interesting part about what has transpired over the last fortnight or so.

As I’ve said before, it’s very easy in these days of social gossip to confuse noise and crisis. There’s no doubt the former can tip into the latter. The big question is - will it? Or will the storm and the teacup part company as the media moves on.

I sometimes refer to this as the tornado effect. The noise is loudest just before the storm starts to move away. But if the storm stalls and continues to build, and you do nothing but look to sit it out, the conventional wisdom has always said you’ll lose everything.

And the conventional answer has always been to wait for the storm to build to a climax, then apologise profusely and publicly, throw yourself on the mercy of the viewing public, sit out the late night jibes and get your own back with the money you make on the comeback tour to public favour.

But what would happen if a brand was big enough to face down the conventional wisdom? What happens if Tiger Woods doesn’t respond and his brand continues to succeed? What if silence does indeed prove a successful strategy? How will the media respond to a brand that refuses to play along?

Right now, the PR people are baying for a response because, amongst other things, it proves the power and importance of their industry. But if Tiger were to do nothing, and to succeed by doing nothing, that calls a number of assumptions about the media, about public relations and about crisis management into question.

I really enjoyed Marina Hyde’s article in the Guardian . “Modern life is littered with the apologetic posturings of stars, and in a world where meaningless public penance is the norm, it's rather inspiring to find someone refusing to play ball … one can only guess at the mounting pressure from Woods's own backers for Tiger to begin the painstaking image rebuild, by which is meant performative contrition, agreeing to be interviewed by Oprah or Barbara Walters, sending oneself up in ads – all the little ways civilised society has devised to extract its pound of sorry from transgressing public figures.” Then. later: “Perhaps only someone who has spent so much of his career kissing up to corporate sponsors can see the contrition industry for what it is: a business.”

Could he get away with silence? If Tiger Woods does, that could rewrite some time-honoured rules, and he may just prove to be a game-changer again - except this time in the area of dealing with the media.

POSTED: Saturday, 12 December 2009