Category Archives: Brand Building

The Rhythm of Strategy

I confess – I poked the bear a little last week. Not too much. Just a little. I purposely oversimplified one side of an argument to set up a debate. I knew there would be those that would swing to the other side in defense of strategy. I initiated an action, for which I knew there would be an equal and opposite reaction. I sometimes do that, because I believe in waves, or oscillations, or rhythms. Call it what you want – I believe in them because they always beat stasis or straight lines. Nature doesn’t move in straight lines.

You didn’t disappoint. You very ably defended strategy. And you did it in an intelligent and nuanced manner – unlike, say – Donald Trump. From a post in response by Rick Liebling: “I would … argue that the “seizing of opportunities” is not the antithesis of strategic thinking, but rather the result of it.  A strong brand strategy helps a company understand what it should, and just as importantly, shouldn’t do. This type of discipline is what allows a company to seize those very opportunities.”

And from Nick Schiavone: “I believe that Principles, Vision and Execution are more critical to “success & satisfaction” than strategies, ideations and systems when it comes to launching, building and sustaining brands.  The end result is really an ongoing, experiential relationship between a special “customer” (i.e., a person of need or desire) and the product or service provided under the auspices of a special “preparer.”(i.e.,  a person of art & science). “

Here’s the thing. When I said much of a businesses performance comes down to luck, that sounded disparaging. But it’s far from it. Luck could also be defined as the circumstances of our environment. They are the factors that lie beyond our control. And they tend to be rhythmic in nature. Sometimes they’re good, sometimes they’re bad. Sometimes they’re huge swings in either direction – what Nassam Nicholas Taleb calls “Black Swans.” And if you look as strategy as Rick Liebling does, then strategy is simply being very good at detecting these rhythms and responding to them.

But that’s not how we typically look at strategy. In fact, our entire mythology and methodology around strategy tends to run in decidedly straight lines. Strategy should be decided on high and be disseminated down to the front line masses. In the case of brand strategy, it may be determined by an agent working on your behalf and delivered in the guise of branding guidelines and polished ads. It should be decisive and unerring. It should plough forward, despite circumstance. Phil Rosenweig’s point in The Halo Effect was not that we should just surrender to the whims of fate, but that we shouldn’t kid ourselves about the importance of fate and our ability to control it. There is no single, “straight line,” universally applicable recipe for dealing with fate.

The problem with strategy, as it is practiced in most organizations, is that it blinds us to fate. We tend to execute in spite of circumstance, rather than in response to it. Rather, strategy in the new marketplace should perhaps be renamed “sense-making.” It should embrace the rhythms and oscillations of fate rather than dampen them in the name of strategic thinking. Organizations should become one massive sensory and experimental organ, constantly monitoring the environment and responding in a rational and opportunistic way.

Finally, let’s not discount the impact of effective leadership and management practices. I said last week that leadership, when isolated from other variables, only accounted for 4% of an organization’s performance. Management practices accounted for another 10%. That sounds ridiculously low, but only because we tend to excessively canonize those things in our business mythologies. Let’s approach it in a more rational way. Let’s imagine that two companies, A & B, both launched this year with $10 million in sales. Over the next 20 years, both companies were subject to the same rhythms – positive and negative – of the marketplace. But, because of superior leadership and management, Company A was able to more effectively capitalize on opportunity, giving it a 14% advantage over Company B. In 2035, what would be the impact of that 14% edge? It’s not insignificant. Company B would have grown in sales to $21 million, growth of just over 100%. But Company A would have sales of almost $290 million. It would be almost 14 times the size of Company B!

It’s not that I don’t believe in strategy. It’s just that it’s time to rethink what we do in the name of strategy.

Is Brand Strategy a Myth?

BrandStrategyThemeOn one side of the bookshelf, you have an ever growing pile of historic business best sellers, with promising titles like In Search of Excellence, 4 +2: What Really Works, Good to Great and Built to Last. Essentially, they’re all recipes for building a highly effective company. They are strategic blueprints for success.

On the other side of the bookshelf, you have books like Phil Rosenweig’s “The Halo Effect.” He trots out a couple of sobering facts: In a rigorous study conducted by Marianne Bertrand at the University of Chicago and Antoinette Schoar at MIT, they isolated and quantified the impact of a leader on the performance of a company. The answer, as it turned out, was 4%. That’s right, on the average, even if you have a Jack Welch at the helm, it will only make about 4% difference to the performance of your company. Four percent is not insignificant, but it’s hardly the earth shaking importance we tend to credit to leadership.

The other fact? What if you followed the instructions of a Jim Collins or Tom Peters? What if you transformed your company’s management practices to emulate those of the winning case studies in these books? Surely, that would make a difference? Well, yes – kind of. Here, the number is 10. In a study done by Nick Bloom of the London School of Economics and Stephen Dorgan at McKinsey, the goal was the test the association between specific management practices and company performance. There was an association. In fact, it explained about 10% of the total variation in company performance.

These are hard numbers for me to swallow. I’ve always been a huge believer in strategy. But I’m also a big believer in good research. Rosenweig’s entire book is dedicated to poking holes in much of the “exhaustive” research we’ve come to rely on as the canonical collection of sound business practices. He doesn’t disagree with many of the resulting findings. He goes as far as saying they “seem to make sense.” But he stops short of given them a scientific stamp of endorsement. The reality is, much of what we endorse as sound strategic thinking comes down to luck and the seizing of opportunities. Business is not conducted in a vacuum. It’s conducted in a highly dynamic, competitive environment. In such an environments, there are few absolutes. Everything is relative. And it’s these relative advantages that dictate success or failure.

Rosenweig’s other point is this: Saying that we just got lucky doesn’t make a very good corporate success story. Humans hate unknowns. We crave identifiable agents for outcomes. We like to assign credit or blame to something we understand. So, we make up stories. We create heroes. We identify villains. We rewrite history to fit into narrative arcs we can identify with. It doesn’t seem right to say that 90% of company performance is due to factors we have no control over. It’s much better to say it came from a well-executed strategy. This is the story that is told by business best sellers.

So, it caught my eye the other day when I saw that ad agencies might not be very good at creating and executing on brand strategies.

First of all, I’ve never believed that branding should be handled by an agency. Brands are the embodiment of the business. They have to live and breathe at the core of that business.

Secondly, brands are not “created” unilaterally – they emerge from that intersection point where the company and the market meet. We as marketers may go in with a predetermined idea of that brand, but ultimately the brand will become whatever the market interprets it to be. Like business in general, this is a highly dynamic and unpredictable environment.

I suspect that if we ever found a way to quantify the impact of brand strategy on the ultimate performance of the brand, we’d find that the number would be a lot lower than we thought it would be. Most of brand success, I suspect, will come down to luck and the seizing of opportunities when they arise.

I know. That’s probably not the story you wanted to hear.

Mad Men: 2065

So, Don Draper is now history. Well, actually, he’s always been history. He started and finished as a half-century look back at what advertising was. Part of the appeal of Mad Men was the anthropological quaintness of the whole thing – “Can you believe they used to do that?” We, smug in our political correctness, can watch an episode secure in the knowledge that the misogynistic, substance-abusive, racist world of Sterling Cooper and Partners is long gone. The world, and with it, advertising, have come a long way!

But, one wonders, what would happen if a similar premise was launched in 2065? What about advertising now would look similarly unacceptable to viewers then?

Draper’s world was the world of the creative spark igniting the big idea. It was the world of the catchy jingle and meme-worthy slogans. The Don Drapers of the world could do no wrong great enough to tarnish the glow of their ability to blow away a client in a pitch or snag a Clio. Creative gods stood firmly astride their kingdoms on Madison Avenue.

Now, of course, we know better. Those were simpler times. Clients, and consumers, are not nearly that naïve. Today, we demand quantitative data and testing to back up our creative inspirations. It’s not just about Big Ideas. Today, advertising is also about Big Data.

But, 50 years from now, will our current preoccupation with data look anachronistic or prescient to that future audience? Are we exhibiting some equally entertaining naiveté? Will the pendulum swing back to the big idea – or will some other alternative present itself? Will data profiling, targeting and programmatic buying look as quaint then as a corny jingle and a three-martini lunch look to us now?

Advertising in the era of Don Draper had gone through its own evolution. At the turn of the century, thanks to the Industrial Revolution, a flood of new products entered the market. Advertising’s first job was to make consumers aware of new offerings, opening new markets in the process. Its primary goal was to inform.

But, by the 50’s and 60’s, mass media had made consumers aware of most product categories. Advertising’s job became to persuade consumers to purchase products they already knew existed. Its primary goal was to persuade. Market share, rather than market expansion, became the end goal. Hence the era of the big idea. You don’t need a big idea to inform, but you do need one to persuade.

Today, however, with the expanding capabilities of technology and micro-manufacturing fueling a new revolution of innovation, we may be coming back to a time where awareness is the primary concern. Advertising’s job seems to be to navigate increasingly complex filters to create awareness in increasingly targeted audiences. The era of branding that found it’s legs in the era of Don Draper already seems to be morphing into something much different that what we’ve known previously. Who knows what that will look like in another 50 years?

The thing about history is that it gives you the intellectual distance required to recognize how silly we once were. The greater the distance, the safer we feel in laughing at ourselves. In the case of advertising, 50 years seems to be an adequate buffer to feel pretty smug with our historical hindsight. Of course, if somehow you could be transported back to 1965 and talk to the average creative director at a big agency, it’s doubtful they would appreciate being enlightened about their ignorance.

So, if we project that forward to today, it makes you wonder. What are the things we do now that our grandchildren will be laughing at in 50 years?

Deconstructing the Market of One

“So, what are you doing now?” My old college friend asked, right after he finished swearing at me because of my early retirement. He assumed I’d be doing something related to marketing.

“I’m starting a cycling tourism business.”

“A what…?”

“Cycling tours.”

“Do you know anything about cycling tours?”

“Not really.”

“Hmmm. Okay. Well, that’s good. It is good, isn’t it?”

“I guess so. We’ll see.”

Truth be told, I’m probably getting too much pleasure from these little flashes of cognitive dissonance that happen when I tell people about my current project. I like watching as they struggle to connect the dots. Maybe it’s because it gives me some comic relief from my own struggles to connect the dots. But I’m beginning to suspect there may by a silver lining in my ignorance. Because I know so little about this business, I’m also taking a different approach to the one aspect I should know something about – the marketing of it.

Connected People in NetworkI could have jumped in and started lining up search campaigns, digging into social media targeting and setting up email campaigns. But instead, I took a step back and looked at the most successful cycling tourism operation I know – the Hotel Belvedere in Riccione, Italy. It’s become a mecca for road cyclists. This year, TripAdvisor rated it as one of the top 20 hotels in the world, based on the rave reviews of it’s cycling clientele. If you’re a road cyclist, chances are pretty good that you’ve heard of the Hotel Belvedere. And if you have heard of it, chances are extremely good that you heard about it from a friend who also cycles. The Belvedere has built its substantial business largely on word of mouth.

We all know word of mouth is the most effective form of advertising. But why is it so effective? We typically assume it’s because the message is coming from an objective source that we trust. But I suspect there’s more to it than that. I think it’s because word of mouth is almost always delivered from one person to another. Word of mouth is messaging to a market of one.

There are some fundamental aspects of this that bear closer examination. Word of mouth usually occurs between friends, or, at the least, acquaintances. That means both parties have at least a passing understanding of each other. They know of common interests and personal likes and dislikes. This allows the message to be tailored for optimal reception. The most effective points of persuasion can be embellished and the least effective ones can be skimmed over. Messages are pre-filtered based on an implicit understanding of the audience.

Secondly, word of mouth advertising is based on a two-way conversation. The message evolves according to that conversation. Questions can be asked. Areas of interest can be explored more deeply. Concerns can be addressed. And, all along the way, both parties learn more about what a future engagement between the prospect and the product in question would look like.

I suspect the power of Word of Mouth comes not just in the objectivity of the sender of the message, but also in the medium in which the message is delivered (thank you Mr. McLuhan). And, if this is the case, then we should see how the strengths of that medium could be extended to other marketing efforts. We should deconstruct the advantages of targeting a Market of One.

The biggest hurdle seems to be the lack of mass normally associated with marketing. In my case, I’m actually planning for a slower approach to marketing, building allowances into the business plan for a marketing plan based on building engagements one at a time. If you’ve ever read Eric Ries’s excellent book, The Lean Start Up, you already know such things are possible. The advantage of the Market of One approach is that each encounter also provides invaluable market feedback, allowing to you to continually evolve your offering. You focus on going deep, rather than going wide. Each encounter gives you the opportunity to create a friendship.

The Virtuous Cycle and the End of Arm’s Length Marketing

brandstewardshipLast week I wrote what should have been an open and shut column – looking at why SEO never really lived up to the potential of the business opportunity. Then my friend Scott Brinker had to respond with this comment:

“Seems like Google has long been focused on making SEO a “result” of companies doing good things, rather than a search-specific optimization “cause” to generate good rankings. They seem to have gotten what they wanted. Now as Google starts to do that with paid search, the world gets interesting for those agencies too..”

Steven Aresenault jumped on the bandwagon with this:

“Companies are going to wake up to the reality that part of their marketing is really about creating content. Content is everywhere and everything. Reality is I believe that it is a new way of thinking.”

As they both point out, SEO should be a natural result of a company doing good things, not the outcome of artificial manipulations practiced by a third party. It has to be baked into and permeate through the operating DNA of a company. But, as I started this column, I realized that this doesn’t stop at SEO. This is just the tip of a much bigger iceberg. Marketing, at least the way it’s been done up to now, is fundamentally broken. And it’s because many companies still rely on what I would call “Arm’s Length Marketing.”

Brand Stewardship = B.S.

Here is a quote lifted directly from the Ogilvy Mather website:

We believe our role as 360 Degree Brand Stewards is this: Creating attention-getting messages that make a promise consistent and true to the brand’s image and identity. And guiding actions, both big and small, that deliver on that brand promise. To every audience that brand has. At every brand intersection point. At all times.

Now, Ogilvy is very good at crafting messages and this one is no exception. Who could possibly argue with their view of brand stewardship? The problem comes when you look at what “stewardship” means. Here’s the Merriam Webster definition:

the conducting, supervising, or managing of something; especially :  the careful and responsible management of something entrusted to one’s care

The last five words are the key – “something entrusted to one’s care”. This implies that the agency has functional control of the brand, and with due apologies to David Ogilvy and his cultural legacy, that is simply bullshit.

Brands = Experience

Hmmm - coincidence?

Hmmm – coincidence?

Maybe Arm’s Length Brand Stewardship was possible in the era of David Ogilvy, Don Draper and Darrin Stephens (now, there’s a pop culture trifecta for you) – where brand messaging defined the brand, but that era is long gone. Brands used to be crafted from exposure, but now they’re created through experience, amplified through the resonant network of the online community. And an arm’s length third party cannot, nor should they, control that experience. It has to live at the heart of the company. For decades, companies abdicated the responsibility of brand stewardship to the communication experts – or, to do a little word crafting – they “entrusted (it) to (their) care.” That has to change. Marketing has to come back home.

The Virtuous Marketing Cycle

Scott talked about the SEO rewards that come from doing good things. Steven talked about authentic content creation being one of those good things. But this is a much bigger deal. This is about forcefully moving marketing’s place in the strategic chain. Currently, the order is this: Management > Strategy > Marketing > Revenue. Marketing’s current job is to execute on strategy, which comes from management. And, in that scenario, it’s plausible to execute at arm’s length. Also, things like SEO and content management fall well down the chain, typically beneath the threshold of senior management awareness. By the way, usability and other user-centric practices typically suffer the same fate.

But what if we moved our thinking from a chain to a cycle: Marketing > Management > Strategy > Marketing > Revenue > Marketing (and repeat)? Let me explain. To begin with, Marketing is perfectly situated to become the “sensemaking” interface with the market. This goes beyond market research, which very seldom truly informs strategy. Market research in its current form is typically intended to optimize the marketing program.

I’m talking about a much bigger role – Marketing would define the “outside in” view of the company which would form the context within which strategy would be determined by Management. Sensemaking as it applies to corporate strategy is a huge topic, but for brevity’s sake, let’s suppose that Marketing fills the role of the corporation’s five senses, defining what reality looks (and smells and sounds and tastes and feels) like . Then, when strategy is defined within that context, Marketing is well positioned to execute on it. Finally, execution is not the end – it is the beginning of another cycle. Sense making is an iterative process. Marketing then redefines what reality looks like and the cycle starts over again.

Bringing stewardship of marketing back to the very heart of the organization fundamentally changes things like arm’s length agency partnerships. It creates a virtuous cycle that runs through length and breadth of a company’s activities. Things like SEO, content creation and usability naturally fall into place.

The Metaphysical Corporation and The Death of Capitalism?

Something strange is happening to companies. More and more, their business is being conducted in non-physical markets. Businesses used to produce stuff. Now, they produce ideas. A recent op-ed piece from Wharton speculated that companies are working their way up Maslow’s Hierarchy. The traditional business produced things that met the needs of the lowest levels of the pyramid – shelter, food, warmth, security. As consumerism spread, companies worked their way up to next levels: entertainment, attainment and enjoyment.  Now, the things that companies sell sit at the top of the pyramid – fulfillment, creativity, self-actualization.

ComponentsSP500_2010The post also talks about another significant shift that’s happening on the balance sheets of Corporate America. Not only are the things that corporations sell changing, but the things that make up the value of the company itself are also changing.  According to research by Ocean Tomo, a merchant bank that specializes in intellectual property, the asset mix of companies has shifted dramatically in the past 40 years. In 1975, tangible assets (buildings, land, equipment, inventory) made up 83% of the market value of the S&P 500 companies. By 2010, that had flipped – Intangible assets (patents, trademarks, goodwill and brand) made up 80% of the market value of the S & P 500.

Chains vs Networks and the Removal of Friction

Barry Libert, Jerry Wind and Megan Beck Finley, the authors of the Wharton piece, focus mainly on the financial aspects of this shift. They point out that general accounting principles (GAAP) are quickly falling behind this corporate evolution. For example, employees are still classified as an expense, rather than an asset. I’m personally more interested in what this shift means for the very structure of a corporation.

If you built stuff, you needed a supply chain. Vertical integration was the way to remove physical transactional friction from the manufacturing process. Vertical integration bred hierarchal management styles. Over time, technology would remove some of the friction and some parts of the chain may evolve into open markets. The automotive industry is a good example. Many of the components of your 2015 Fusion are supplied to Ford by independent vendors. Despite this, makers of “stuff” still want to control the entire chain through centralized management.

But if you sell ideas, you need to have a network. Intangible products don’t have any physical friction, so supply chains are not required. And if you try to control a network with a centralized hierarchy, branches of your network soon wither and die.

The New Real Thing

coca-cola-freestyle-machineCoke has not been a maker of stuff for quite some time now. Sure, they make beverages, so technically they’re quenching our thirst, but the true value of Coke lies in its brand and our connection to that brand. The “Real Thing” is, ironically and quite literally, a figment of our imagination. If you were to place Coke on Maslow’s Hierarchy – it wouldn’t sit on the bottom level (physiological) but on the third (Love/Belonging) or even the fourth (Esteem).

Coke is very aware of its personal connection with it’s customers and the intangibles that come with it. That’s why the Coca-Cola Freestyle Vending Machine comes with the marketing tag line: “So many options. Thirst isn’t one of them.” You can customize your own formulation from over 100 choices, and if you have the Freestyle app, you can reorder your brand at any Coke Freestyle machine in the world. Of course, Coke is quietly gathering all this customer data that’s generated, including consumption patterns and regional preferences. Again, this intimate customer insight is just one of the intangibles that is becoming increasing valuable.

Coke is not only changing how it distributes its product. It’s also grappling with changing its very structure. In a recent conversation I had with CMO Joe Tripodi, he talked a lot about Coke’s move towards becoming a networked corporation. Essentially, Coke wants to make sure that worldwide innovation isn’t choked off by commands coming from Atlanta.

The Turning Point of Capitalism

As corporate America moves away from the making of physical stuff and towards the creation of concepts that it shares with customers, what does that mean for capital markets? If you believe Jeremy Rifkin, in his new book The Zero Marginal Cost Society, he contends that capitalism is dying a slow death. Eventually, it will be replaced by a new collaborative common market made possible by the increasing shrinkage of marginal costs. As we move from the physical to the metaphysical, the cost of producing consumable services or digital concept-based products (books, music, video, software) drops dramatically. Capital was required to overcome physical transactional friction. If that friction disappears, so does the need for capital.   Rifkin doesn’t believe the death of capitalism will be any time soon, but he does see an inevitable trend towards a new type of market he calls the Collaborative Commons.

Get Intimate

My last takeaway is this – if future business depends on connecting with customers and their conceptual needs, it becomes essential to know those customers on a deeply intimate level.  Throw away any preconceptions from the days of mass marketing and start thinking about how to connect with the “Market of One.”

Have the Odds Caught Up with Apple?

google-vs-appleGoogle has just surpassed Apple as the most valuable brand in the world. In diving deeper on this, there are several angles one could take. If you live in the intersection of brand and technology marketing, as I have for the last several years, this is noteworthy on many levels. One, for instance, are the dramatic shifts in Millward Brown’s assigned brand value for the two companies – with Google soaring 40 percent, and Apple plunging 20 percent. According to Millward Brown’s Brandz™ Study, Google’s brand is worth $158 billion, up from $113 billion last year. And the post-Jobs Apple is down to $147 billion from last years $185 billion number one spot. Combined, that’s an $83 billion swap in valuations. Apple was one of the few brands to actually loose ground in this year’s report.

I personally find this interesting because of some recent research I’ve been doing on corporate strategy for an upcoming book. It comes as a surprise to no one reading this column that I’m a big believer in corporate strategy. But in my research, I’ve been forced to admit that strategy is a little understood and over-hyped concept. Actually, let me clarify that – strategy as it’s taught in most MBA programs is little understood and over-hyped. Executives and consultants pull matrices and strategic frameworks out of thin air, and injudiciously apply them to any and all situations. With all due deference to the Michael Porters, Peter Druckers, Jim Collins and Tom Peters of the world, I suspect the world of corporate strategy is more complex than 5 universal steps, a four box matrix or simple models illustrated with a few circles and arrows. The mistaken assumption with all this is that all strategic wisdom must flow from top to bottom.

Let’s go back to Apple and Google. Apple, under Jobs, was a traditional hierarchy. More than this, it was a hierarchy ensconced in an ivory tower. Due, no doubt, to the considerable hubris of Mr. Jobs, Apple believed that all good things had to be laboriously squeezed out of their own design process and mercilessly tweaked to perfection.

Google, on the other hand, fully embraces the concept of a market to drive innovation. Notice I say “a market”, not “the market.” Here, I refer to markets as a tool, not an entity. The distinction is important. Markets are built to facilitate exchanges. They use valuation mechanisms (such as pricing) to protect fairness and introduce equilibrium in the market. It their most ideal form, markets allow any member of the marketplace to contribute and be judged on the value of their contribution, not their status. In Google’s case, the 20% free time rule, Google Labs and their experimentation with prediction markets all use market dynamics to drive both innovation and corporate strategy. Markets allow for a Darwinian approach to strategy, pulling it up from the bottom rather than driving it down from the top. And, as evolutionary biologist Leslie Orgel liked to say, “Evolution is cleverer than you are.”

But there are trade-offs. Bottom up approaches to strategy need some mechanism to pick winners and losers. There needs to be the corporate equivalent of natural selection. This, again, is where markets can help. Without robust and definitive selection tools, the bottoms-up organization can vacillate endlessly, never making any headway. Also, management of execution in bottom-up organizations can be a much more challenging balancing act. Dictatorships might not be a lot of fun for the “dictatees” but you can definitely get the trains running on time.

Here’s one last thing to keep in mind. Every time we trot out Apple in the era of Steve Jobs as an example of anything to do with corporations, we tend to forget that in the normal distribution of visionary talent, Jobs was an extreme outlier. He was a once in a generation anomaly. You can’t build a corporate strategy around the hope that you have a Steve Jobs on the executive payroll. Sooner or later, the odds will catch up to you.

Will Apple’s brand value bounce back in 2015? Perhaps. But in the dynamically complex market that is today’s reality, I’d be placing my bets on organizations that have learned to adapt and evolve in complexity.

So, Six Seconds is the Secret, Huh?

First published February 13, 2014 in Mediapost’s Search Insider

oreo-superbowl-blackout-adApparently, the new official time limit for customer engagement is 6 seconds, according to a recent post on Real Time Marketing. How did we come up with 6? Well, in the world of social media engagement it seemed like a good number and no one has called bull shit on it yet, so 6 it is

Marketers love to talk about time – just in time, real time, right time. At the root of all this “time talk” is the realization that customers really don’t have any time for us, so we have to somehow jam our messages into the tiny little cracks that may appear in the wall of willful ignorance they carefully build against marketing. The marketer’s goal is to erode their defenses by looking for any weakness that may appear.

Look at the supposed poster child for Real Time Marketing – the Oreo coup staged during the black out in the 2013 Super Bowl. Because the messaging was surprising and clever, and because, let’s face it, we weren’t doing much of anything else anyway, Oreo managed to gain a foothold in our collective consciousness for a few precious seconds. So, marketers being marketers, we all stumbled over ourselves to proclaim a new channel and launch a series of new micro-attacks on consumers. That’s where the 6 seconds came from. Apparently, that’s the secret to storming the walls. Five seconds and you’re golden. Seven seconds and you’re dead.

Oreo surprised us, and it wasn’t because the message was 6 seconds long. It was because we weren’t expecting a highly relevant, highly timely message. Humans are built to respond to things that don’t fit within our expected patterns. The whole approach of marketing is to constantly blanket us with untimely, irrelevant messages. Marketers, to be fair, try to deliver the right message at the right time to the right person, but it’s really hard to do that. So, we overcompensate by delivering lots of messages all the time to everyone, hoping to get lucky. Not to take anything away from the cleverness and nimbleness of the Oreo campaign, but they got lucky. We were surprised and we let our defenses down long enough to be amused and entertained. Real time marketing wasn’t a brilliant new channel; it was a shot in the dark – literally.

And there’s no six-second gold standard of engagement. If you can deliver the right message at the right time to the right person, you can spend hours talking to your prospective customer.  It’s only when you’re trying to interrupt someone with something irrelevant that you have to hopefully shoehorn it into their consciousness. Think of it like a Maslow’s hierarchy of advertising effectiveness.  At it’s best advertising should be useful. This sits at the top of the pyramid. After usefulness comes relevance – even if I don’t find the ad useful to me right now, at least you’re talking to the right person. After relevance comes entertainment – I’ll willingly give you a few seconds of my time if I find your message amusing or emotionally engaging.  I may not buy, but I’ll spend some time with you. After entertainment comes the category the majority of advertising falls into – a total waste of my time.  Not useful, irrelevant, not emotionally engaging. And making an ad that falls into this category 5 seconds long, no matter what channel it’s delivered through, won’t change that. You may fool me once, but next time, I’m still going to ignore you.

There was something important happening during the Oreo campaign at the 2013 Super Bowl, but it had nothing to do with some new magic formula, some recently discovered loophole in our cognitive defenses. It was a sign of what may, hopefully, emerge as trend in advertising – nimble, responsive marketing that establishes a true feedback loop with prospects. What may have happened when the lights went out in New Orleans is that we may have found a new, very potent way to make sense of our market and establish a truly interactive, responsive dialogue with them. If this is the case, we may have just found a way climb a rung or two on the Advertising Effectiveness Hierarchy.

A Tale of Two Research Philosophies

First published December 19, 2013 in Mediapost’s Search Insider

They only sit about five miles apart physically. One’s in Palo Alto, the other’s in Mountain View. But when it comes to how R&D is integrated into an organization’s strategy, there is significantly more distance between Xerox’s PARC and Google.

Xerox Alto computer

Xerox Alto computer

I recently visited both locations on the same day. PARC, of course, is the legendary research wing that created the graphical user interface, the personal computer, object oriented programming, the mouse, Ethernet and the laser printer. It was at PARC that Steve Jobs saw the interface that would eventually form the OS foundation for the Macintosh. Every time we touch the technology that today we take for granted, we should give thanks to the many people who have called the unassuming campus on Coyote Hill Road home.

But in 1969, when PARC was first created, there was a different attitude towards R&D. Research required isolation and distance from the regular business rhythms of the mother ship. Xerox could not have put more distance between its head office, in Rochester, N.Y., and its new research arm, 3,000 miles away. When it came to innovation, the choice of location was fortuitous. PARC, together with HP and other Silicon Valley pioneers, tapped into the stream of talent that was coming out of Stanford. In fact, PARC is located on land leased from Stanford. It soon became an innovation hotbed, thanks to the visionary leadership of Bob Taylor, who headed up the Computer Science division. But Xerox’s track record of bringing its own innovations to the market was dismal. As great as the physical distance was between PARC and the executive wing of Xerox in upstate New York, the philosophical distance was several times greater.

Google’s research efforts, under the leadership of Peter Norvig, is taking a much different direction, likely due to lessons learned from PARC and others.  Research is embedded in the ever-expanding Google campus that currently sprawls along Amphitheatre Parkway and Charleston Road. There is a free flow of traffic and communication between current product engineering teams (many riding brightly colored Google bikes) and those working on longer-term projects. The distance between “today” and “tomorrow” is minimized at every opportunity.

Norvig commented on this in a recent interview with me:

We don’t have a separate research entity whose job is to be isolated from the rest of the company and think about the future. Rather, everybody’s job, regardless of their job title, is to make our products better or invent a new product. So the distinction between being a researcher versus an engineer is not how academic you are, it’s not how forward-thinking you are  — whether you’re looking at this year or next year or the year after. It’s more in terms of the area that you work in. If you work in core search or in core distributed computer systems, then your title’s going to be software engineer, even if you’re a Nobel Prize-winning professor.

Google has taken a hybrid approach to research, in which even long-term projects are developed at production scale, minimizing the risk of projects failing during the technology transfer phase. Norvig touched on this in a recent article:

Elaborate research prototypes are rarely created, since their development delays the launch of improved end-user services. Typically, a single team iteratively explores fundamental research ideas, develops and maintains the software, and helps operate the resulting Google services — all driven by real-world experience and concrete data. This long-term engagement serves to eliminate most risk to technology transfer from research to engineering.

This was exactly the trap that PARC ran into, when some of the most innovative advances in the history of computing failed to significantly contribute to Xerox’s bottom line.  Google has thrown the doors open for internal research teams to access the full power of complete data sets and production scale systems while espousing the practice of agile development. The goal is to ensure that all innovation that happens at Google is not too far removed from the goal of either diversifying Google’s revenue stream with new products, or contributing to existing ones.

Three Myths About Customer Love

First published July 5, 2012 in Mediapost’s Search Insider

Today, I want to talk about the last of the three posts by Harvard Business Review bloggers, Karen Freeman, Patrick Spenner and Anna Bird  I have been surveying: “Three Myths about What Customers Want.” Specifically, I want to look at this post’s implications for online marketing.

Myth #1: Most consumers want to have relationships with your brand.

This myth is at the crux of many, many social media campaigns. The theory is, a “like” = “intent to buy.” I have said before that I believe this is hogwash. The HBR bloggers concur:

“Only 23% of the consumers in our study said they have a relationship with a brand. In the typical consumer’s view of the world, relationships are reserved for friends, family and colleagues. That’s why, when you ask the 77% of consumers who don’t have relationships with brands to explain why, you get comments like ‘It’s just a brand, not a member of my family.’”

Marketers being marketers, we tend to think the entire world revolves around whatever it is we’re trying to sell. We believe people actually give a damn. They don’t, at least not in the vast majority of cases.  In contrast, relationships endure. They are there for the long haul. Consumer consideration runs on much shorter timelines.

There are degrees to consider here, however. What consumers can develop for a brand is loyalty. This falls into the category of beliefs, and that is what drives a lot of consumer behavior. We can believe a brand offers good value without having a relationship with it. Beliefs are heuristic decision shortcuts, which help consumers cut through cognitive overload.

Myth #2: Interactions built relationships.

Actually, say the HBR team, relationships are built on shared values:

“Of the consumers in our study who said they have a brand relationship, 64% cited shared values as the primary reason. That’s far and away the largest driver. Meanwhile, only 13% cited frequent interactions with the brand as a reason for having a relationship.”

Values can be a powerful driver of how we form beliefs. The brand I probably have the strongest affinity for is Apple. And it’s not because I have a relationship with Apple (never having visited its Facebook page). It’s because I believe Apple shares my values of creative freedom, uncompromising design and aesthetically pleasing experiences. I interact with an Apple device every day of my life. But I interact with the company only when I need something.

Myth #3: The more interaction, the better.

Marketers want to dominate a prospect’s time, in the mistaken belief that it will make the relationship “stickier.” If “stickier” means frustrating and annoying, they could be right.

“There’s no correlation between interactions with a customer and the likelihood that he or she will be ‘sticky’ (go through with an intended purchase, purchase again, and recommend),” writes the HBR team. “Yet, most marketers behave as if there is a continuous linear relationship between the number of interactions and share of wallet. That’s why, as the Wall Street Journal recently reported, you see well-established retailers like Neiman Marcus, Lands’ End and Toys R Us sending customers over 300 emails annually.”

We all have lots to do. The last thing on that list is to spend unnecessary time interacting with a brand because they’ve targeted us as a “loyal” customer. Here’s a question to ask yourself: Who benefits most from all these interactions — the customer or the marketer? If the answer is the marketer, then why should the customer care?

The danger of becoming marketers is that we gain a distorted perception of reality. Our job is to love a brand. It consumes our professional lives. This does weird things to a human brain. It makes it almost impossible to look at our brands the same way the rest of the world does. We care because we have to. We get paid to. The rest of the world doesn’t share the same motivation.