What do you do when you broker an introduction as part of a networking exercise only to have it go awry?
I was in a meeting yesterday with several marketing communications colleagues. At the conclusion of our session, one of them pulled me aside and diplomatically said "Hey, that person that you introduced to me via email never followed up. I just wanted you to know."
I'm sure my face displayed my frustration as I was mortified. I take great pride in making sure that anyone I recommend for a job or that I introduce to a colleague is someone that I truly vouch for and would hire myself, if given that opportunity.
There are many "how to" posts out there on networking and relationship building. However, none that I've seen focuses on the consequence of what happens when your recommended contact fails to follow up. How will my colleague, referenced above, react the next time I send someone her way? Or, will I even feel right about sending a recommended associate to her in the future?
The lesson, if you're the recommend-er, is to carefully and thoroughly vet your introduction. And, I'd suggest that as part of the networking process and agreement to broker an introduction comes a reminder to your recommend-ee that they have to follow up with an explanation as to why - that it's your relationship that is on the line here.
As for those who get recommended, my admonition is this - follow the hell up with the person to whom you've been recommended! You've been given a gift - accept it and take advantage of the opportunity.
Wednesday, August 9, 2017
Monday, July 24, 2017
Can you really manage a career...or simply try to guide it?
Last week I chaired a Kansas City International Association of Business Communicators (IABC) roundtable discussion with seven other marketing communications professionals on the topic of "managing your career." As I prepared for the discussion and subsequently listened to my colleagues during our coffee talk, it became very clear that "managing" a career seldom happens - it's more a case of trying to "guide" a career.
My IABC colleagues at this discussion ranged from a young, first job professional to those who had changed professions to those who were on the last few laps of their career journey and were trying to figure out "what's next?" And, what I expected to hear differed from what I took away from our conversation.
First, I was pleasantly surprised at how many felt positive about the career guidance they were receiving from their immediate supervisor. From personal experience as well as what was drilled into us at a former employer, the most important attribute of a job for employees is the quality of guidance they want from their immediate boss. Thankfully, the majority of my colleagues last week were upbeat about that aspect of their current career stop.
Second, almost all cited the continuing phenomenon of being asked to do more and being asked to do something for which they have little to no experience. All mentioned the spread-too-thin stress that they feel coupled with the sometimes request to do something for which they are not trained and for which the requestor doesn't understand the complexity of the task.
Finally, none of the attendees were seeking the silver bullet for achieving career success. Rather, they knew that their potential for success rested on networking, attending professional enrichment events such as this, and seeking counsel from others in their profession. In fact, all acknowledged that they do less "managing" and more "guiding" when it comes to career advancement.
As for what I told them, my advice focused on the following:
I'm always energized with these sorts of discussions and inevitably find a new contact or two that plays an important role in my own career navigation. And, as is usually the case, my going-in assumptions ended up being much different than my mindset after the discussion.
Thank you, Kansas City IABC, for giving me the opportunity to facilitate this discussion and for all you do for the marketing communications community in our region!
My IABC colleagues at this discussion ranged from a young, first job professional to those who had changed professions to those who were on the last few laps of their career journey and were trying to figure out "what's next?" And, what I expected to hear differed from what I took away from our conversation.
First, I was pleasantly surprised at how many felt positive about the career guidance they were receiving from their immediate supervisor. From personal experience as well as what was drilled into us at a former employer, the most important attribute of a job for employees is the quality of guidance they want from their immediate boss. Thankfully, the majority of my colleagues last week were upbeat about that aspect of their current career stop.
Second, almost all cited the continuing phenomenon of being asked to do more and being asked to do something for which they have little to no experience. All mentioned the spread-too-thin stress that they feel coupled with the sometimes request to do something for which they are not trained and for which the requestor doesn't understand the complexity of the task.
Finally, none of the attendees were seeking the silver bullet for achieving career success. Rather, they knew that their potential for success rested on networking, attending professional enrichment events such as this, and seeking counsel from others in their profession. In fact, all acknowledged that they do less "managing" and more "guiding" when it comes to career advancement.
As for what I told them, my advice focused on the following:
- Constant learning. Your job and the future jobs you will seek are changing. Find ways, especially with new and improved online learning tools, to stay current and push for new knowledge. Think ahead - consider where you think your career is going and learn accordingly.
- Know your audience. Just as you advise clients to know their audience, so too should you know yours. Figure out how best to relate to your boss and those you work with as well as those you will meet within the future pursuit of a new job.
- Manage your brand. Your personal brand is something that you can manage. Know your personal brand authority, i.e., who you are and what you can comment on with your social media presence. Don't under-estimate the importance of marketing yourself including your appearance, body language, attitude, energy, timeliness and attention to detail.
- Be self aware. Who provides you with unfiltered, objective advice and feedback? If you don't have that person, or persons in your life, you best find them...now.
- The power of networking. Reach out, make contacts and don't think of your interactions as transactional - think of them as mutually transformational where you're not only learning and gaining value but you are doing the same for your networking partner.
I'm always energized with these sorts of discussions and inevitably find a new contact or two that plays an important role in my own career navigation. And, as is usually the case, my going-in assumptions ended up being much different than my mindset after the discussion.
Thank you, Kansas City IABC, for giving me the opportunity to facilitate this discussion and for all you do for the marketing communications community in our region!
Monday, June 19, 2017
Who holds your mirror?
Last Friday, several friends and I got together for breakfast. Not unusual, I know, but what makes this group unique is that we all started out as business colleagues and are now close friends. We meet for breakfast once a quarter and use our time together to talk about everything from politics to civic issues to what's going on in our respective businesses. Our ranks include those who have started their own businesses to those who have risen through the ranks of large corporations.
I, personally, find this quarterly breakfast to be an injection of much-needed adrenaline as I admire each of these friends, respect their achievements, and closely value their opinions. If I need advice, chances are one or all of the guys around this table are high on the list of folks I would call.
Who's your adrenaline source for your life, be it personal and/or professional? Are there those in your immediate network that you can turn to, on any topic, and know that you'll get their unvarnished objective advice?
Everyone needs a support group in their life. Everyone needs to have the mirror held up to their face by someone they respect.
Who's your mirror holder? If you don't have one, I suggest you fill that position right now!
(Editor's note: Want to know more? Let's talk - I'd welcome the chance to chat about my thoughts on networking and managing your career.)
I, personally, find this quarterly breakfast to be an injection of much-needed adrenaline as I admire each of these friends, respect their achievements, and closely value their opinions. If I need advice, chances are one or all of the guys around this table are high on the list of folks I would call.
Who's your adrenaline source for your life, be it personal and/or professional? Are there those in your immediate network that you can turn to, on any topic, and know that you'll get their unvarnished objective advice?
Everyone needs a support group in their life. Everyone needs to have the mirror held up to their face by someone they respect.
Who's your mirror holder? If you don't have one, I suggest you fill that position right now!
(Editor's note: Want to know more? Let's talk - I'd welcome the chance to chat about my thoughts on networking and managing your career.)
Thursday, June 8, 2017
The Godfather turns 45
I had the opportunity this week to see The Godfather - again - on the big screen. Turner Classic Movies (TCM) is smartly bringing several classic movies to select theaters to be seen in the environment for which they were created - a movie theater. TCM's first offering was The Godfather in celebration of the 45th anniversary of this true classic.
The film was released in March 1972. I made the road trip that spring with a couple of buddies to the Glenwood Theater in suburban Kansas City to see this movie that had generated significant pre-release buzz. (And, remember kids - there wasn't an internet, TMZ or that Twitter thing back in '72.) My need to attend the movie had been piqued by my high school English teacher, who went off on a rant one day about the show's violence and its glorification of the Mafia. I exchanged a look with my pal in class that day that was "hell yeah, we need to see this movie!"
I sat enthralled for three hours in that massive movie theater (pre-multiplex) watching a story of family, loyalty, deceit, lies, honor and violence. I marveled at Marlin Brando's portrayal of the family patriarch, Vito Corleone, and was unsettled at how Al Pacino's character, Michael Corleone, evolved from returning war hero to cold-blooded heir to the godfather throne.
Like many of you, I've seen this movie on the small screen far too many times to count, whether through an intentional sit-down viewing to the stop-and-watch phenomenon when cruising channels and finding it on TCM. That's why I was so excited to see the film again in a theater - would it really stand the test of time in that environment?
The answer is a resounding "yes." The film captured me - again - for three hours. I was struck at how this film has ingrained itself in American culture, both through the themes that run throughout the movie and the sequel as well as the ultimate barometer - the phrases that have become a part of our language. All 30 or so of us in the theater knew that "I'm going to make him an offer he can't refuse" was coming, and it elicited a few chuckles given the "offer" to the movie mogul that followed. I mouthed the words to "...never take sides against the family again. Ever." when Michael admonishes his brother, Fredo, after a meeting with Moe Green in Las Vegas. And, I smiled when Clemenza told his underling, "Leave the gun; take the cannoli" after whacking an unsuspecting turncoat.
The Godfather has more than stood the test of time. It was released in what TCM on-camera host Joseph Mankiewicz called the golden age of movie-making - 1967 to 1974 - when this film and Godfather II plus other classics like Bonnie & Clyde, The Graduate, Cool Hand Luke, Easy Rider, Five Easy Pieces, The French Connection, and Chinatown were made. And, it and its sequel are the best of what that golden decade of movie-making had to offer.
The Godfather is also a story of redemption. The movie redeemed the career of Francis Ford Coppola and cemented the legacy of Marlin Brando. Coppola wasn't the studio's first pick, second pick or even third pick to direct the film, but ultimately made a two-movie classic with the original plus sequel. Brando was cast as Vito Corleone only after Lawrence Olivier declined the role and Brando agreed to a lowered salary and a bond to ensure that he would not delay production, given his notorious reputation for being difficult while on set. His performance earned him an Academy Award for Best Actor.
As Joe Fox, played by Tom Hanks, says in You've Got Mail, "'The Godfather' is the I Ching. 'The Godfather' is the sum of all wisdom. 'The Godfather' is the answer to any question."
The movie has withstood the test of time. It's language is ingrained in our culture. The ensemble cast turned in performances that helped define their careers. It is shown repeatedly on classic movie channels. It is simply the greatest movie ever made.
The film was released in March 1972. I made the road trip that spring with a couple of buddies to the Glenwood Theater in suburban Kansas City to see this movie that had generated significant pre-release buzz. (And, remember kids - there wasn't an internet, TMZ or that Twitter thing back in '72.) My need to attend the movie had been piqued by my high school English teacher, who went off on a rant one day about the show's violence and its glorification of the Mafia. I exchanged a look with my pal in class that day that was "hell yeah, we need to see this movie!"
I sat enthralled for three hours in that massive movie theater (pre-multiplex) watching a story of family, loyalty, deceit, lies, honor and violence. I marveled at Marlin Brando's portrayal of the family patriarch, Vito Corleone, and was unsettled at how Al Pacino's character, Michael Corleone, evolved from returning war hero to cold-blooded heir to the godfather throne.
Like many of you, I've seen this movie on the small screen far too many times to count, whether through an intentional sit-down viewing to the stop-and-watch phenomenon when cruising channels and finding it on TCM. That's why I was so excited to see the film again in a theater - would it really stand the test of time in that environment?
The answer is a resounding "yes." The film captured me - again - for three hours. I was struck at how this film has ingrained itself in American culture, both through the themes that run throughout the movie and the sequel as well as the ultimate barometer - the phrases that have become a part of our language. All 30 or so of us in the theater knew that "I'm going to make him an offer he can't refuse" was coming, and it elicited a few chuckles given the "offer" to the movie mogul that followed. I mouthed the words to "...never take sides against the family again. Ever." when Michael admonishes his brother, Fredo, after a meeting with Moe Green in Las Vegas. And, I smiled when Clemenza told his underling, "Leave the gun; take the cannoli" after whacking an unsuspecting turncoat.
The Godfather has more than stood the test of time. It was released in what TCM on-camera host Joseph Mankiewicz called the golden age of movie-making - 1967 to 1974 - when this film and Godfather II plus other classics like Bonnie & Clyde, The Graduate, Cool Hand Luke, Easy Rider, Five Easy Pieces, The French Connection, and Chinatown were made. And, it and its sequel are the best of what that golden decade of movie-making had to offer.
The Godfather is also a story of redemption. The movie redeemed the career of Francis Ford Coppola and cemented the legacy of Marlin Brando. Coppola wasn't the studio's first pick, second pick or even third pick to direct the film, but ultimately made a two-movie classic with the original plus sequel. Brando was cast as Vito Corleone only after Lawrence Olivier declined the role and Brando agreed to a lowered salary and a bond to ensure that he would not delay production, given his notorious reputation for being difficult while on set. His performance earned him an Academy Award for Best Actor.
As Joe Fox, played by Tom Hanks, says in You've Got Mail, "'The Godfather' is the I Ching. 'The Godfather' is the sum of all wisdom. 'The Godfather' is the answer to any question."
The movie has withstood the test of time. It's language is ingrained in our culture. The ensemble cast turned in performances that helped define their careers. It is shown repeatedly on classic movie channels. It is simply the greatest movie ever made.
Wednesday, June 7, 2017
Can any of us avoid meeting hell...?
The headline in today's Wall Street Journal made me smile - it read "The Postponed Meeting Vortex." Who hasn't been in that vortex of postponed meeting hell?
Meetings are a necessity and I realize that they aren't going away anytime soon. Can meetings be more effective? You bet - just read my blog post from last week. However, it's the postponed or late cancelled meetings that have a negative trickle down effect that can be so debilitating.
My experiences have ranged from having a boss who compulsively cancelled meetings or asked me to attend in his place, always with the latest of warnings, to situations (more than once) where I was told that a senior executive couldn't attend a meeting that had been scheduled weeks in advance with business partners who were flying in specifically for that meeting.
What can you do to avoid this vortex? Well, unlike my prior blog post about how to more effectively manage meetings, there isn't much that can be done with the cancelled/postponed meeting challenge.
The Journal's story suggested a "three strikes and you're out" philosophy - that one doesn't allow more than three reschedules or cancellations before moving on. But, how does that work when the serial offender is your boss or even further up the executive food chain?
My advice is to make contingency plans when the offender is most frequently your boss or above. Plan for the likely postponement or cancellation and don't book meetings in proximity that will be affected by the changed schedule. Alert your team in advance when you think there's the possibility that your meeting, and consequently their schedule, will be changed. If your boss relies upon an assistant for scheduling, work closely with that person to consistently reinforce why his/her attendance is critical. And, if the opportunity presents itself and you think it will help, have a heart-to-heart discussion with your boss about the effect these schedule changes have on the whole department.
If you're the offender and have to postpone or cancel a meeting with little warning, over-err on being contrite. Offer to do something on behalf on the affected person or group. And, at minimum, make sure that the words "I'm sorry" are used in lieu of some lame excuse.
Let me know if you have suggestions for how to handle this huge irritant in business life - I'll be sure and pass along your thoughts in an upcoming post. Send me a note at mgoff@goffmarketing.com - I'd love to hear from you!
Meetings are a necessity and I realize that they aren't going away anytime soon. Can meetings be more effective? You bet - just read my blog post from last week. However, it's the postponed or late cancelled meetings that have a negative trickle down effect that can be so debilitating.
My experiences have ranged from having a boss who compulsively cancelled meetings or asked me to attend in his place, always with the latest of warnings, to situations (more than once) where I was told that a senior executive couldn't attend a meeting that had been scheduled weeks in advance with business partners who were flying in specifically for that meeting.
What can you do to avoid this vortex? Well, unlike my prior blog post about how to more effectively manage meetings, there isn't much that can be done with the cancelled/postponed meeting challenge.
The Journal's story suggested a "three strikes and you're out" philosophy - that one doesn't allow more than three reschedules or cancellations before moving on. But, how does that work when the serial offender is your boss or even further up the executive food chain?
My advice is to make contingency plans when the offender is most frequently your boss or above. Plan for the likely postponement or cancellation and don't book meetings in proximity that will be affected by the changed schedule. Alert your team in advance when you think there's the possibility that your meeting, and consequently their schedule, will be changed. If your boss relies upon an assistant for scheduling, work closely with that person to consistently reinforce why his/her attendance is critical. And, if the opportunity presents itself and you think it will help, have a heart-to-heart discussion with your boss about the effect these schedule changes have on the whole department.
If you're the offender and have to postpone or cancel a meeting with little warning, over-err on being contrite. Offer to do something on behalf on the affected person or group. And, at minimum, make sure that the words "I'm sorry" are used in lieu of some lame excuse.
Let me know if you have suggestions for how to handle this huge irritant in business life - I'll be sure and pass along your thoughts in an upcoming post. Send me a note at mgoff@goffmarketing.com - I'd love to hear from you!
Friday, May 26, 2017
Don't meet - do the work
I get quizzed a lot by friends and colleagues now that I've opened up my own consulting practice. And, the primary question I get is "what's the biggest difference from working in an environment with lots of people?"
The answer is simple - I now have time to do the work.
Meetings are the bane of corporate life. There's the misguided behavior of believing that meetings equal productivity. And, who among us doesn't know the work colleague who seems to take pride in saying "I'm sorry, I can't see you today - I'm in meetings all day." Really!? What business self-help book ever said that was the way to be productive?
I know that meetings are necessary, and I of course still participate in meetings with my clients and business prospects. Keep the following basic suggestions in mind and, who knows - perhaps then you'll be able to have time to do the work.
- The more people, the less effective the meeting. There is a rule of seven - beyond that number, the odds of coming to a quick and effective decision are lowered by 10 percent for every person added to the invitee list of a meeting. Don't invite anyone who can't meaningfully contribute to the decisions that need to be made in the meeting.
- Have a stated purpose, agenda and time limit. In my Sprint days, every meeting had to have this P.A.L. It was interesting to see how meeting effectiveness improved with this meeting mandatory. (Be sure to send the agenda in advance of the meeting.)
- Do a plus/delta at the end of the meeting. Give your meeting attendees the opportunity to provide feedback on the effectiveness and efficiency of the meeting by conducting a quick what worked/what needs improvement discussion during the final two minutes of any meeting. Take that feedback into consideration for your next/future meetings.
- Provide pre-read materials. Providing background information in advance of the meeting usually improves the outcomes and ability to make decisions...as long as the materials are read.
- 30 minute meetings. Discipline yourself, and your company, to have 30 minute meetings as the new normal. Make an hour-long meeting the exception, not the rule.
There are plenty of other meeting tips. Implementing these five, though, will immediately impact meeting effectiveness and, I would bet, your personal productivity as a result.
The answer is simple - I now have time to do the work.
Meetings are the bane of corporate life. There's the misguided behavior of believing that meetings equal productivity. And, who among us doesn't know the work colleague who seems to take pride in saying "I'm sorry, I can't see you today - I'm in meetings all day." Really!? What business self-help book ever said that was the way to be productive?
I know that meetings are necessary, and I of course still participate in meetings with my clients and business prospects. Keep the following basic suggestions in mind and, who knows - perhaps then you'll be able to have time to do the work.
- The more people, the less effective the meeting. There is a rule of seven - beyond that number, the odds of coming to a quick and effective decision are lowered by 10 percent for every person added to the invitee list of a meeting. Don't invite anyone who can't meaningfully contribute to the decisions that need to be made in the meeting.
- Have a stated purpose, agenda and time limit. In my Sprint days, every meeting had to have this P.A.L. It was interesting to see how meeting effectiveness improved with this meeting mandatory. (Be sure to send the agenda in advance of the meeting.)
- Do a plus/delta at the end of the meeting. Give your meeting attendees the opportunity to provide feedback on the effectiveness and efficiency of the meeting by conducting a quick what worked/what needs improvement discussion during the final two minutes of any meeting. Take that feedback into consideration for your next/future meetings.
- Provide pre-read materials. Providing background information in advance of the meeting usually improves the outcomes and ability to make decisions...as long as the materials are read.
- 30 minute meetings. Discipline yourself, and your company, to have 30 minute meetings as the new normal. Make an hour-long meeting the exception, not the rule.
There are plenty of other meeting tips. Implementing these five, though, will immediately impact meeting effectiveness and, I would bet, your personal productivity as a result.
Monday, May 8, 2017
The Garth experience
I sat in a sold out Sprint Center last night in amazement. I looked around this ten-year old facility and saw nothing but delighted faces who were willing Garth Brooks on and on as they experienced what arguably may be the best musical performer alive today. Brooks was on his fifth sold-out concert in two-and-half days and was giving it his all. But, he was clearly spent from approximately 12 hours worth of hard charging country and rock and roll since his first show Friday night at 8:00 p.m.
I've seen Brooks twice - first in 2007 when he sold out nine shows at Sprint Center in the arena's inaugural year in Kansas City. (As Brooks stated frequently last night, "We opened this frickin' building!") And, I attended last night with about 17,000 of my friends from low places, all of who could not get enough of this marquee performer.
What struck me sitting there was the experience of a Garth Brooks concert. I've seen Bruce Springsteen, U2, and the Rolling Stones in their prime - all multiple times. Only the Boss comes close to replicating what Brooks can do live - draw in an audience, guide them and own the attendee experience.
Brooks' genuine sincerity is his genius. The audience feels it, the audience knows it, and they repay that sincerity with their devotion to performer and music. There is no other concert that I've attended where the audience sings along, with abandon, to every word of every verse of every song - even those who weren't hit singles. Only the Boss comes close, which is why I tweeted last night that there is the Boss, and Garth...and everyone else is playing for third place.
Brands would be wise to study Brooks and follow his lead. He's genuine. He's sincere. He understands his audience. He prices his experience in a way that it's affordable to everyman/everywoman. And, he gives his absolute all to every concert-goer at every show. In return, you feel like you are the most important person at his show whenever you see him in concert.
Garth Brooks is a showman. He's also a brand that understands who he is, what he delivers, and revels in the relationship that he's created with his devotees.
If there is a case study for the consumer experience worth emulating, it is this. Seven sold out shows over two weekends are proof enough of what his consumers think of the experience.
Editor's note: Garth Brooks played shows on Friday night, May 5; Saturday afternoon and evening, May 6; and Sunday afternoon and evening, May 7. He will return to play concerts at Sprint Center, Kansas City, MO, on Friday night, May 12 and Saturday night, May 13. His wife, Trisha Yearwood, shares the stage with him for a portion of each show.
I've seen Brooks twice - first in 2007 when he sold out nine shows at Sprint Center in the arena's inaugural year in Kansas City. (As Brooks stated frequently last night, "We opened this frickin' building!") And, I attended last night with about 17,000 of my friends from low places, all of who could not get enough of this marquee performer.
What struck me sitting there was the experience of a Garth Brooks concert. I've seen Bruce Springsteen, U2, and the Rolling Stones in their prime - all multiple times. Only the Boss comes close to replicating what Brooks can do live - draw in an audience, guide them and own the attendee experience.
Brooks' genuine sincerity is his genius. The audience feels it, the audience knows it, and they repay that sincerity with their devotion to performer and music. There is no other concert that I've attended where the audience sings along, with abandon, to every word of every verse of every song - even those who weren't hit singles. Only the Boss comes close, which is why I tweeted last night that there is the Boss, and Garth...and everyone else is playing for third place.
Brands would be wise to study Brooks and follow his lead. He's genuine. He's sincere. He understands his audience. He prices his experience in a way that it's affordable to everyman/everywoman. And, he gives his absolute all to every concert-goer at every show. In return, you feel like you are the most important person at his show whenever you see him in concert.
Garth Brooks is a showman. He's also a brand that understands who he is, what he delivers, and revels in the relationship that he's created with his devotees.
If there is a case study for the consumer experience worth emulating, it is this. Seven sold out shows over two weekends are proof enough of what his consumers think of the experience.
Editor's note: Garth Brooks played shows on Friday night, May 5; Saturday afternoon and evening, May 6; and Sunday afternoon and evening, May 7. He will return to play concerts at Sprint Center, Kansas City, MO, on Friday night, May 12 and Saturday night, May 13. His wife, Trisha Yearwood, shares the stage with him for a portion of each show.
Tuesday, May 2, 2017
What do our favorite brands say about us?
Did you see it? Morning Consult Intelligence released its annual list of Most Loved Brands today based upon their research of 200,000 Americans. The list contained many of the usual suspects but had more than its share of surprises.
The top 10 Most Loved Brands are:
1. Amazon
2. Google
3. UPS
4. Hershey
5. FedEx
6. Campbell Soup
7. YouTube
8. Sony
9. Home Depot
10. Lowe's
Now, I don't know about you but what is it about the delivery category that is so intriguing? I mean, UPS and FedEx are terrific companies but I'd be hard-pressed to name either as a favorite brand of mine.
So too was the head scratching mention of two DIY category brands cracking the top ten. Again, let's give it up for the Depot and Lowe's but neither gets me excited like brands not mentioned in the top ten - notably, Dove (Unilever), Starbucks, and Harley Davidson, among others.
It's interesting that Hershey's made it all the way to #4 given that company's past year of battling a takeover attempt by Mondelez, a CMO departure, and very public expense reductions in marketing.
More than 500 companies across a variety of sectors were ranked via an online survey. Respondents indicated whether they had a favorable or unfavorable view of each, which is why some of these surprises may have occurred. A positive favorability rating is hardly a proxy for purchase behavior, brand loyalty and/or brand advocacy.
Do you want to see the full list by sector? You can find the information here:
https://morningconsultintelligence.com/featured/top-brands#overall
The top 10 Most Loved Brands are:
1. Amazon
2. Google
3. UPS
4. Hershey
5. FedEx
6. Campbell Soup
7. YouTube
8. Sony
9. Home Depot
10. Lowe's
Now, I don't know about you but what is it about the delivery category that is so intriguing? I mean, UPS and FedEx are terrific companies but I'd be hard-pressed to name either as a favorite brand of mine.
So too was the head scratching mention of two DIY category brands cracking the top ten. Again, let's give it up for the Depot and Lowe's but neither gets me excited like brands not mentioned in the top ten - notably, Dove (Unilever), Starbucks, and Harley Davidson, among others.
It's interesting that Hershey's made it all the way to #4 given that company's past year of battling a takeover attempt by Mondelez, a CMO departure, and very public expense reductions in marketing.
More than 500 companies across a variety of sectors were ranked via an online survey. Respondents indicated whether they had a favorable or unfavorable view of each, which is why some of these surprises may have occurred. A positive favorability rating is hardly a proxy for purchase behavior, brand loyalty and/or brand advocacy.
Do you want to see the full list by sector? You can find the information here:
https://morningconsultintelligence.com/featured/top-brands#overall
Friday, April 21, 2017
"Don't be afraid to ask the question"
"Don't be afraid to ask the question."
Bob Schieffer of CBS News is an acclaimed journalist who has moderated presidential debates, covered every U.S. president since Richard Nixon, and is one of the few who has covered all four major Washington assignments - the White House, Congress, State Department and the Pentagon.
Schieffer was on the campus of the University of Kansas yesterday participating in William Allen White Day, an annual celebration of the William Allen White School of Journalism and Mass Communications. And, the above quote is his - it was his response to a question about what advice he would give young journalists.
First off, for those not familiar with White, he was a newspaper editor, politician and leader of the Progressive movement. He also became the spokesman for middle America in the early 1900's through his death in 1944.
White was a Kansan and became editor of the Emporia Gazette in 1896. It was in that year that he gained national attention with his attack on William Jennings Bryan, Democrats and Populists via an editorial titled "What's the Matter with Kansas?" He ridiculed Populist leaders for letting his state slide into economic stagnation and for not keeping up with neighboring states because of anti-business policies.
He won a Pulitzer Prize in 1923 for his editorial, "To An Anxious Friend," published in July 1922 after he was arrested in a dispute over free speech. He had objected to the way that Kansas handled the men who participated in the great railroad strike of that year.
Each year, the KU School of Journalism and the William Allen White Foundation honors an individual for outstanding journalistic service. Past recipients of the National Citation include Seymour Hersh, Walter Cronkite, Arthur O. Sulzberger, Charles Kuralt, Bob Woodward, Molly Ivins, Frank Deform and Gwen Ifill, among others.
This year's recipient was Charlie Rose of CBS This Morning and Charlie Rose: The Week. Due to his recent heart surgery, Rose was unable to travel and Schieffer, his good friend, accepted in Rose's honor.
While disappointed that I would not get to see and hear Rose, I was delighted at the chance to hear Schieffer - and he did not disappoint. Scheffer was interviewed by one of Kansas' journalism students before a crowd of about 400 people yesterday but it was less an interview and more of Schieffer taking off and riffing on the news of the day and his views on the current state of journalism.
I took away several nuggets from his 30 minutes of remarks:
- "Walter Cronkite was the single most curious person I've ever known." (Cronkite was Schieffer's mentor early in his CBS career.)
- His one piece of advice to students? "Show up on time."
- Not surprisingly, Schieffer said that the recent presidential campaign was the oddest campaign of any kind that he's covered in his career that spans some 50+ years. He cited the oddity of Jeb Bush raising $115 million yet being a non-factor in the Republican primaries and the tone deaf response ("That's what they were willing to pay") of Hillary Clinton when asked about the $600,000 she had amassed in speaking fees.
- He called current technology the greatest and most impactful communications invention since the printing press.
- Schieffer is very, very concerned about the impact of this presidency on the future credibility of the White House and thinks that we are in "dangerous times" - the "most dangerous since the Cuban Missile Crisis" of 1962.
- He also opined about the role of journalism in America, using the comparison of a totalitarian political system ("where there is one source - the government") to a democracy, where citizens have information and can compare, and where the media's job and role is to "question the message."
- Schieffer would welcome the chance to interview Donald Trump - again - and suggested that the President understands management but lacks leadership, the key skill needed to serve in our nation's highest office.
- On his good friend, Rose, he had this to say, "Charlie is the best interviewer I know because he allows people to answer his questions."
- And, asked what advice he would give young journalists, Schieffer said "Don't be afraid to ask the question. The biggest mistake you can make is assuming that you know the answer - when in reality that is when you get your best story."
My immediate reaction to his response was "can't we all learn by asking the question?" How often do we assume only to learn later that our assumption was wrong on the question left unasked?
As I listened to Schieffer, I couldn't help thinking of White and his common sense principles and approach to journalism. As much as I applauded the selection of Rose for KU's National Citation award, I think that Schieffer would have been just as deserving a recipient - his values and journalistic integrity closely mirror the man who's name is on this prestigious award.
Editor's Note: Mike Goff is a member of the William Allen White Foundation's Board of Trustees.
Bob Schieffer of CBS News is an acclaimed journalist who has moderated presidential debates, covered every U.S. president since Richard Nixon, and is one of the few who has covered all four major Washington assignments - the White House, Congress, State Department and the Pentagon.
Schieffer was on the campus of the University of Kansas yesterday participating in William Allen White Day, an annual celebration of the William Allen White School of Journalism and Mass Communications. And, the above quote is his - it was his response to a question about what advice he would give young journalists.
First off, for those not familiar with White, he was a newspaper editor, politician and leader of the Progressive movement. He also became the spokesman for middle America in the early 1900's through his death in 1944.
White was a Kansan and became editor of the Emporia Gazette in 1896. It was in that year that he gained national attention with his attack on William Jennings Bryan, Democrats and Populists via an editorial titled "What's the Matter with Kansas?" He ridiculed Populist leaders for letting his state slide into economic stagnation and for not keeping up with neighboring states because of anti-business policies.
He won a Pulitzer Prize in 1923 for his editorial, "To An Anxious Friend," published in July 1922 after he was arrested in a dispute over free speech. He had objected to the way that Kansas handled the men who participated in the great railroad strike of that year.
Each year, the KU School of Journalism and the William Allen White Foundation honors an individual for outstanding journalistic service. Past recipients of the National Citation include Seymour Hersh, Walter Cronkite, Arthur O. Sulzberger, Charles Kuralt, Bob Woodward, Molly Ivins, Frank Deform and Gwen Ifill, among others.
This year's recipient was Charlie Rose of CBS This Morning and Charlie Rose: The Week. Due to his recent heart surgery, Rose was unable to travel and Schieffer, his good friend, accepted in Rose's honor.
While disappointed that I would not get to see and hear Rose, I was delighted at the chance to hear Schieffer - and he did not disappoint. Scheffer was interviewed by one of Kansas' journalism students before a crowd of about 400 people yesterday but it was less an interview and more of Schieffer taking off and riffing on the news of the day and his views on the current state of journalism.
I took away several nuggets from his 30 minutes of remarks:
- "Walter Cronkite was the single most curious person I've ever known." (Cronkite was Schieffer's mentor early in his CBS career.)
- His one piece of advice to students? "Show up on time."
- Not surprisingly, Schieffer said that the recent presidential campaign was the oddest campaign of any kind that he's covered in his career that spans some 50+ years. He cited the oddity of Jeb Bush raising $115 million yet being a non-factor in the Republican primaries and the tone deaf response ("That's what they were willing to pay") of Hillary Clinton when asked about the $600,000 she had amassed in speaking fees.
- He called current technology the greatest and most impactful communications invention since the printing press.
- Schieffer is very, very concerned about the impact of this presidency on the future credibility of the White House and thinks that we are in "dangerous times" - the "most dangerous since the Cuban Missile Crisis" of 1962.
- He also opined about the role of journalism in America, using the comparison of a totalitarian political system ("where there is one source - the government") to a democracy, where citizens have information and can compare, and where the media's job and role is to "question the message."
- Schieffer would welcome the chance to interview Donald Trump - again - and suggested that the President understands management but lacks leadership, the key skill needed to serve in our nation's highest office.
- On his good friend, Rose, he had this to say, "Charlie is the best interviewer I know because he allows people to answer his questions."
- And, asked what advice he would give young journalists, Schieffer said "Don't be afraid to ask the question. The biggest mistake you can make is assuming that you know the answer - when in reality that is when you get your best story."
My immediate reaction to his response was "can't we all learn by asking the question?" How often do we assume only to learn later that our assumption was wrong on the question left unasked?
As I listened to Schieffer, I couldn't help thinking of White and his common sense principles and approach to journalism. As much as I applauded the selection of Rose for KU's National Citation award, I think that Schieffer would have been just as deserving a recipient - his values and journalistic integrity closely mirror the man who's name is on this prestigious award.
Editor's Note: Mike Goff is a member of the William Allen White Foundation's Board of Trustees.
Monday, April 17, 2017
The "no asshole" rule
I recently read a profile in Sports Business Journal on Sean McManus, head of CBS Sports, and loved a point he made when talking about the CBS Sports culture.
"At CBS Sports, we have what we call a 'no asshole' rule," McManus said. "You can't be an asshole and work at CBS Sports."
How refreshing, given what in my observation is a time when more businesses are openly encouraging contentious behavior between team members under the guise of open and honest dialogue. An unfortunate byproduct of that behavior is the decay in trust that occurs among business colleagues.
Who hasn't heard phrases such as "I'm not trying to be a (insert your favorite descriptor here), but..." When translated, that really means "I AM trying to be a (insert your favorite descriptor here)." Another personal favorite is the "I don't want to tell you what to do, but..." And, of course, you know they ARE going to tell you what they think you should do.
The beauty of McManus' statement, and approach, is that it fosters trust between CBS Sports colleagues. That trust becomes evident to the external world as well.
McManus emphasized that he's worked hard to develop a culture of respect and collegiality at CBS Sports. Here's hoping that other business leaders see value, and results, in developing that same "no asshole" approach within their own companies and work groups.
"At CBS Sports, we have what we call a 'no asshole' rule," McManus said. "You can't be an asshole and work at CBS Sports."
How refreshing, given what in my observation is a time when more businesses are openly encouraging contentious behavior between team members under the guise of open and honest dialogue. An unfortunate byproduct of that behavior is the decay in trust that occurs among business colleagues.
Who hasn't heard phrases such as "I'm not trying to be a (insert your favorite descriptor here), but..." When translated, that really means "I AM trying to be a (insert your favorite descriptor here)." Another personal favorite is the "I don't want to tell you what to do, but..." And, of course, you know they ARE going to tell you what they think you should do.
The beauty of McManus' statement, and approach, is that it fosters trust between CBS Sports colleagues. That trust becomes evident to the external world as well.
McManus emphasized that he's worked hard to develop a culture of respect and collegiality at CBS Sports. Here's hoping that other business leaders see value, and results, in developing that same "no asshole" approach within their own companies and work groups.
Tuesday, April 11, 2017
Flying the friendly skies
In 1965, the Leo Burnett advertising agency created one of the most iconic advertising taglines in U.S. history. Burnett's client, United Airlines, began an ad campaign that year that used "Fly the Friendly Skies of United" and those words stayed in place for 30 years.
The tagline was so iconic that United, and its then ad agency, brought back "Fly the Friendly Skies" in 2013 with a new campaign designed to reignite the glory days of the airline.
My, my - what then do we make of this current situation with United? The current firestorm created by video of a passenger being forcibly removed from a flight due to an overbooking situation has, of course, gone viral. And, a company already challenged by a recent proxy fight and leadership changes is in a full-fledged public relations crisis.
Shares in United Continental Holdings were down 2.6% this morning. If the company's stock is down that much at the closing bell, it will experience a $600 million reduction in its market cap.
What's this brand in crisis to do? Here are some thoughts.
Admit the wrong. As of this morning, United CEO Oscar Munoz has offered an apology that's backhanded at best. That's not good enough. Munoz needs to immediately apologize to the passenger who was forcibly removed and reach out to him directly with a meaningful expression of contrition; he also needs to personally apologize to the others that were asked to leave the flight as well as those on that plane who witnessed the heavy-handed handling of the situation. Quit suggesting that this is protocol or intimating that it was justified - it was not.
Change the overbooking policy. There is no frequent traveler on the planet who likes an airline's overbooking policy. So, United, change it! Just as your airline stood for something in the mid-1960's, have it stand for something now.
Start a conversation with your primary customers. There are airports such as Chicago O'Hare and Washington Dulles that are key for United's success. Travelers in these markets, and others, rely upon United as their primary carrier - it's imperative that the airline establish a dialogue as the first step toward a more meaningful relationship with these travelers. This communication must happen immediately - with contrition, a re-commitment to the values that formerly made United great, and an explanation of what the airline is going to do to improve the flying experience.
Communicate broadly, starting from within. If ever there was a time to activate an integrated, meaningful rehabilitation of the brand, this is it. Recommit to values that improve the flying experience and empower the airline's associates to do whatever is necessary; wherever, whenever and whatever the situation, to make a passenger feel appreciated and thanked. Live this commitment through meaningful actions that can be communicated in broad fashion through all media channels. And, put checks-and-balances in place so that protocol and policy don't get in the way of the best consumer experience possible, whether it's at the gate, on the tarmac, in the air, or upon landing.
Can United survive? Yes, it can, but not without significant, immediate actions from the top down and from the inside out.
The tagline was so iconic that United, and its then ad agency, brought back "Fly the Friendly Skies" in 2013 with a new campaign designed to reignite the glory days of the airline.
My, my - what then do we make of this current situation with United? The current firestorm created by video of a passenger being forcibly removed from a flight due to an overbooking situation has, of course, gone viral. And, a company already challenged by a recent proxy fight and leadership changes is in a full-fledged public relations crisis.
Shares in United Continental Holdings were down 2.6% this morning. If the company's stock is down that much at the closing bell, it will experience a $600 million reduction in its market cap.
What's this brand in crisis to do? Here are some thoughts.
Admit the wrong. As of this morning, United CEO Oscar Munoz has offered an apology that's backhanded at best. That's not good enough. Munoz needs to immediately apologize to the passenger who was forcibly removed and reach out to him directly with a meaningful expression of contrition; he also needs to personally apologize to the others that were asked to leave the flight as well as those on that plane who witnessed the heavy-handed handling of the situation. Quit suggesting that this is protocol or intimating that it was justified - it was not.
Change the overbooking policy. There is no frequent traveler on the planet who likes an airline's overbooking policy. So, United, change it! Just as your airline stood for something in the mid-1960's, have it stand for something now.
Start a conversation with your primary customers. There are airports such as Chicago O'Hare and Washington Dulles that are key for United's success. Travelers in these markets, and others, rely upon United as their primary carrier - it's imperative that the airline establish a dialogue as the first step toward a more meaningful relationship with these travelers. This communication must happen immediately - with contrition, a re-commitment to the values that formerly made United great, and an explanation of what the airline is going to do to improve the flying experience.
Communicate broadly, starting from within. If ever there was a time to activate an integrated, meaningful rehabilitation of the brand, this is it. Recommit to values that improve the flying experience and empower the airline's associates to do whatever is necessary; wherever, whenever and whatever the situation, to make a passenger feel appreciated and thanked. Live this commitment through meaningful actions that can be communicated in broad fashion through all media channels. And, put checks-and-balances in place so that protocol and policy don't get in the way of the best consumer experience possible, whether it's at the gate, on the tarmac, in the air, or upon landing.
Can United survive? Yes, it can, but not without significant, immediate actions from the top down and from the inside out.
Wednesday, April 5, 2017
How Pepsi got it so wrong
A spot-on breakdown of how a brand got a piece of advertising content so very wrong.
http://www.adweek.com/brand-marketing/how-pepsi-got-it-so-wrong-unpacking-one-of-the-most-reviled-ads-in-recent-memory/?curator=MediaREDEF
http://www.adweek.com/brand-marketing/how-pepsi-got-it-so-wrong-unpacking-one-of-the-most-reviled-ads-in-recent-memory/?curator=MediaREDEF
Friday, March 24, 2017
Don't take it personally
Those of you who read this blog regularly know that I'm a fan of Seth Godin. And, I always read Godin's daily email, some of which are short, sweet and directly to the point and others that are longer thought pieces.
Today, Godin wrote about the difference of "seriously versus personally.
We all take our work seriously. It matters to us and the impacts, both positive and negative, are real.
I often see co-workers and colleagues take criticism, and rejection, far too personally versus taking it seriously. As Godin writes, "When someone rejects an idea, or if a project doesn't succeed, we've learned a valuable lesson about strategy and about tactics, but it's not a reflection on our worth as a human."
Are there bad clients and co-workers out there who might delight a bit too much in saying "no?" Of course. The bigger reality, though, is that being told 'no' is far-and-away the usual right answer that one should take, consider and use to grow.
The traditional saying is "Don't take it personally." I'd suggest that you're better served by hearing "Don't take it personally but do take it seriously."
Today, Godin wrote about the difference of "seriously versus personally.
We all take our work seriously. It matters to us and the impacts, both positive and negative, are real.
I often see co-workers and colleagues take criticism, and rejection, far too personally versus taking it seriously. As Godin writes, "When someone rejects an idea, or if a project doesn't succeed, we've learned a valuable lesson about strategy and about tactics, but it's not a reflection on our worth as a human."
Are there bad clients and co-workers out there who might delight a bit too much in saying "no?" Of course. The bigger reality, though, is that being told 'no' is far-and-away the usual right answer that one should take, consider and use to grow.
The traditional saying is "Don't take it personally." I'd suggest that you're better served by hearing "Don't take it personally but do take it seriously."
Tuesday, March 21, 2017
Chapter Two: You're your own boss...now what?
(Editor's note: On February 1, I wrote my first blog post in this space about my personal "Art to Start" and what I encountered as I started Goff + Marketing. Here now, three months in, is Chapter Two of this journey, which focuses on my experience of working solo.)
A colleague of mine recently presented at South x Southwest to a packed room audience of 400 people. The topic? Working remotely.
He and I were catching up today and commiserated on what we are both encountering, he as a former agency executive who worked remotely and is now starting his own consultancy, and me as my own boss with the marketing consultant shingle hanging outside my home office now for the past three months. If attendance at his SxSW conference is an indicator, many others are also curious with what it means to be a remote worker.
What personally is ironic is that I started my professional career as a remote employee. I worked in Florida for a publishing company headquartered in Chicago and with a Kansas City office, which is where my management was located. I covered the Southeast and learned quickly that self-discipline was an absolute mandatory if one expected to succeed as a single worker operating out of a Florida apartment. I was on the road frequently in this job but it wasn't easy as a single male, with a beach about a mile away, to wake up those mornings when home and consider the work day versus the many options for fun in south Florida.
Fast forward to today. Remote working conditions are incredibly easy - technology that is location agnostic makes it simple to connect and produce from anywhere. What's lost, and thus a challenge, is the face-to-face human interaction.
I miss my office environment with the energy and creativity that was on display every day. I miss the actual experience of "going to work." I miss the camaraderie that comes with hallway conversations that lead to big ideas. Sure, the commute was no fun but I felt a part of something as I decompressed on the drive home every evening. Now, my commute is up 14 steps every morning to the home office.
What's it take to succeed working on your own? Here are a few suggestions based upon my experience to date:
Network, network, network. I've found that my regular (almost daily) coffee meetings with colleagues and prospects have served as my proxy for no longer having an office team that I'm around every day. Use the time networking to not only develop your business but to learn - make sure that you're connecting with a broad group that not only can provide business opportunities but learning opportunities as well.
Establish new rituals that provide energy and cleanse your mind. It's easy to become cocooned in the home office. Build in time in your day to get up, get outside, take a brisk 10-minute walk, and clear the head. (Just make sure that when you go outside that you don't suddenly get distracted by the flower bed that needs weeding!)
Own your office space. Limit distractions. Children, a spouse, a pet - all cause distractions for the worker who is trying to crunch on a project at home. Do the simple things to limit distractions - close your door, make sure you have a space that is truly yours versus working from the dining room table or the couch, and don't answer your door or home phone unless it's a necessity.
Find those that you can share success with...and failure too. You no longer have an office work team. So, create one. Maintain regular contact with a mentor or with a friend/colleague you can use for ideas, feedback, or to share a success or failure story. Working as an individual out of a home office doesn't mean that you have to cut off regular contact with the outside world.
Like - I mean really like - what you do. It's a challenge. And, given that challenge, you'd better well like what you're doing...and I mean really like what you're doing. That passion translates into the needed discipline to generate the ideas, to do the work, to get on the phone with clients...and to succeed! If you're going to embark on this journey, your first question to yourself should be "do I like what I'm doing well enough to take on this remote working challenge?"
That's it - my suggestions on how you make this remote work opportunity meaningful and successful.
Are there other ideas? Sure. In fact, email me (mgoff@goffmarketing.com) with your suggestions and I'll publish them here. I look forward to hearing from you!
A colleague of mine recently presented at South x Southwest to a packed room audience of 400 people. The topic? Working remotely.
He and I were catching up today and commiserated on what we are both encountering, he as a former agency executive who worked remotely and is now starting his own consultancy, and me as my own boss with the marketing consultant shingle hanging outside my home office now for the past three months. If attendance at his SxSW conference is an indicator, many others are also curious with what it means to be a remote worker.
What personally is ironic is that I started my professional career as a remote employee. I worked in Florida for a publishing company headquartered in Chicago and with a Kansas City office, which is where my management was located. I covered the Southeast and learned quickly that self-discipline was an absolute mandatory if one expected to succeed as a single worker operating out of a Florida apartment. I was on the road frequently in this job but it wasn't easy as a single male, with a beach about a mile away, to wake up those mornings when home and consider the work day versus the many options for fun in south Florida.
Fast forward to today. Remote working conditions are incredibly easy - technology that is location agnostic makes it simple to connect and produce from anywhere. What's lost, and thus a challenge, is the face-to-face human interaction.
I miss my office environment with the energy and creativity that was on display every day. I miss the actual experience of "going to work." I miss the camaraderie that comes with hallway conversations that lead to big ideas. Sure, the commute was no fun but I felt a part of something as I decompressed on the drive home every evening. Now, my commute is up 14 steps every morning to the home office.
What's it take to succeed working on your own? Here are a few suggestions based upon my experience to date:
Network, network, network. I've found that my regular (almost daily) coffee meetings with colleagues and prospects have served as my proxy for no longer having an office team that I'm around every day. Use the time networking to not only develop your business but to learn - make sure that you're connecting with a broad group that not only can provide business opportunities but learning opportunities as well.
Establish new rituals that provide energy and cleanse your mind. It's easy to become cocooned in the home office. Build in time in your day to get up, get outside, take a brisk 10-minute walk, and clear the head. (Just make sure that when you go outside that you don't suddenly get distracted by the flower bed that needs weeding!)
Own your office space. Limit distractions. Children, a spouse, a pet - all cause distractions for the worker who is trying to crunch on a project at home. Do the simple things to limit distractions - close your door, make sure you have a space that is truly yours versus working from the dining room table or the couch, and don't answer your door or home phone unless it's a necessity.
Find those that you can share success with...and failure too. You no longer have an office work team. So, create one. Maintain regular contact with a mentor or with a friend/colleague you can use for ideas, feedback, or to share a success or failure story. Working as an individual out of a home office doesn't mean that you have to cut off regular contact with the outside world.
Like - I mean really like - what you do. It's a challenge. And, given that challenge, you'd better well like what you're doing...and I mean really like what you're doing. That passion translates into the needed discipline to generate the ideas, to do the work, to get on the phone with clients...and to succeed! If you're going to embark on this journey, your first question to yourself should be "do I like what I'm doing well enough to take on this remote working challenge?"
That's it - my suggestions on how you make this remote work opportunity meaningful and successful.
Are there other ideas? Sure. In fact, email me (mgoff@goffmarketing.com) with your suggestions and I'll publish them here. I look forward to hearing from you!
Wednesday, March 15, 2017
I'm speaking to Gen Z...and I'm nervous
I've been invited to speak to two business and marketing classes at a local high school and gladly accepted when the invitation was extended. I'm now in deep prep for my appearances and, as I research and plan, have to admit that I'm very nervous about what I'm to present.
Think about it - this is a generation that has never known a world without mobile devices, that for the majority of its motor skill life has only known touch screens, and for who the paradox of choice means the only product and service consumption life they have known. I, on the other hand, remember when we had three television stations to choose from and when a wireless phone required antennas and battery packs! Talk about a generational divide!
Seriously, the learning divide between how my generation gathered information, learned and applied is so vastly different than this current crop of tweens and teens. Yet, this whole effort is helping me realize the challenge that brands face as they figure out this new cohort.
In recent research conducted by Futurecast, a Barkley company, this cohort was dubbed the Pivotal Generation because they are "battling the duality of traditional and non-conformist values and behaviors."
Interestingly, Futurecast's work indicates that Gen Z resembles Boomers in that they are earnest, hard-working and driven by traditional values of success. Yet, they're also bringing radical views on race, gender, identity and sexuality into our culture. They're socially and technologically empowered, meaning that their impact on our society is going to be immense.
I'm working much harder than expected on a presentation that I initially thought would be easy. Yet, as I prepare, I'm fascinated by the differences in my content for these two classes compared to the undergraduate and graduate class guest lecturing that I've handled in the past.
I'll let you know how it goes - wish me luck!
Think about it - this is a generation that has never known a world without mobile devices, that for the majority of its motor skill life has only known touch screens, and for who the paradox of choice means the only product and service consumption life they have known. I, on the other hand, remember when we had three television stations to choose from and when a wireless phone required antennas and battery packs! Talk about a generational divide!
Seriously, the learning divide between how my generation gathered information, learned and applied is so vastly different than this current crop of tweens and teens. Yet, this whole effort is helping me realize the challenge that brands face as they figure out this new cohort.
In recent research conducted by Futurecast, a Barkley company, this cohort was dubbed the Pivotal Generation because they are "battling the duality of traditional and non-conformist values and behaviors."
Interestingly, Futurecast's work indicates that Gen Z resembles Boomers in that they are earnest, hard-working and driven by traditional values of success. Yet, they're also bringing radical views on race, gender, identity and sexuality into our culture. They're socially and technologically empowered, meaning that their impact on our society is going to be immense.
I'm working much harder than expected on a presentation that I initially thought would be easy. Yet, as I prepare, I'm fascinated by the differences in my content for these two classes compared to the undergraduate and graduate class guest lecturing that I've handled in the past.
I'll let you know how it goes - wish me luck!
Thursday, March 2, 2017
When a brand becomes the story
This year's Academy Awards broadcast on ABC continued a ratings slide for the live event, down 4% overall year over year and down 14% against the coveted 18-49 year old audience. And for those who didn't tune in, what an Oscars telecast to miss!
By now you know the story - Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway called the wrong name for Best Picture, mistakenly giving the award to La La Land when the correct winner was Moonlight. In the ensuring chaos, it was determined that the wrong information had been placed in the envelope delivered to Beatty and thus the ensuing gaffe that was unprecedented in Academy Award history.
A brand that is ordinarily a side note to the Oscars ceremony is now squarely in the crosshairs. PriceWaterhouseCoopers has been called out publicly as the culprit and the two PwC accountants responsible have been barred from future shows.
To their credit, PwC quickly confessed to the mistake and did their best to deflect blame from Beatty and Dunaway. It was the right move but the whole episode highlighted the risks taken by those brands that are intimately involved in the success of a live event.
Earlier in my career at Sprint, we were an integral player in the success of World Cup Soccer 1994. This global event - the largest sporting event in the world - came to the U.S. with enormous technological and telecommunications needs given the worldwide viewing audience and the massive media contingent from across the globe reporting on this month-long tournament. Our company built a network linking the nine involved U.S. host markets and media center and worked closely with the international media, ensuring that the network worked flawlessly.
Our company took a gamble and our brand was exposed. We pulled it all off with nary a major glitch and avoided our own PwC moment.
As I look back, I shudder at what might have been and think about current brands whose technology, product and/or service are a part of the game or event. These brands cannot underestimate the importance of product or technology performance and quality service if they hope to raise the profile of their brand through these partnerships and avoid their own PwC moment.
Unfortunately for PwC, their brand's role as a side note took only a moment to become the story. Rebuilding the brand after a public outing like that is a challenge no brand manager ever wishes to face.
By now you know the story - Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway called the wrong name for Best Picture, mistakenly giving the award to La La Land when the correct winner was Moonlight. In the ensuring chaos, it was determined that the wrong information had been placed in the envelope delivered to Beatty and thus the ensuing gaffe that was unprecedented in Academy Award history.
A brand that is ordinarily a side note to the Oscars ceremony is now squarely in the crosshairs. PriceWaterhouseCoopers has been called out publicly as the culprit and the two PwC accountants responsible have been barred from future shows.
To their credit, PwC quickly confessed to the mistake and did their best to deflect blame from Beatty and Dunaway. It was the right move but the whole episode highlighted the risks taken by those brands that are intimately involved in the success of a live event.
Earlier in my career at Sprint, we were an integral player in the success of World Cup Soccer 1994. This global event - the largest sporting event in the world - came to the U.S. with enormous technological and telecommunications needs given the worldwide viewing audience and the massive media contingent from across the globe reporting on this month-long tournament. Our company built a network linking the nine involved U.S. host markets and media center and worked closely with the international media, ensuring that the network worked flawlessly.
Our company took a gamble and our brand was exposed. We pulled it all off with nary a major glitch and avoided our own PwC moment.
As I look back, I shudder at what might have been and think about current brands whose technology, product and/or service are a part of the game or event. These brands cannot underestimate the importance of product or technology performance and quality service if they hope to raise the profile of their brand through these partnerships and avoid their own PwC moment.
Unfortunately for PwC, their brand's role as a side note took only a moment to become the story. Rebuilding the brand after a public outing like that is a challenge no brand manager ever wishes to face.
Friday, February 17, 2017
What the heck is "diplomatic tenacity?"
I had the good fortune of participating on a panel discussion yesterday at the Business Communicators Summit - the Kansas City chapter of IABC's annual get-together of business communications professionals in this region.
The panel was made of up of three other senior marketers like me and we were asked a series of questions regarding trends in communications, how we use data to build data-driven content and the usual "tell us some advice you can pass along to help all of us advance our careers."
My response? Have "diplomatic tenacity." Let me explain.
I often hear managers say that they want team members who are "tenacious." I subsequently have seen team members develop sharp elbows and become a bull-in-a-china-closet in their interactions with colleagues in other departments.
The term "diplomatic" is critical. Why? The word is defined as "Skill in managing negotiations, handling people, etc., so that there is little or no ill will; tact." Combine that skill set - the deft building and handling of relationships - with tenacity and you have a formula for success.
When explaining the phrase I used an example from earlier in my career. A colleague of mine and I were working to get our corporation to approve a major investment in a sponsorship partnership. This investment was not only significant for our company but it also was an unprecedented amount in the world of partnership marketing.
The two of us made 27 presentations - 27! - internally to senior leaders across the company. While some would likely define that as insanity ("the process of doing something that isn't working over and over"), we used the process to fine tune our presentation and sales effort each of the 27 times that we made our pitch. Ultimately, this "diplomatic tenacity" - the refusal to grow weary of the process and the numerous reasons "why not" - resulted in one senior exec pounding his hand on the table and saying "we must do this - it's the right thing for our company!"
Not everyone gets that once-in-career opportunity to doggedly work to gain approval on something that changes the direction of a brand. But, everyone does get a chance in their career to practice diplomatic tenacity.
To learn more, shoot me an email (mgoff@goffmarketing.com) - I'd love to help you and your team implement diplomatic tenacity within your organization.
The panel was made of up of three other senior marketers like me and we were asked a series of questions regarding trends in communications, how we use data to build data-driven content and the usual "tell us some advice you can pass along to help all of us advance our careers."
My response? Have "diplomatic tenacity." Let me explain.
I often hear managers say that they want team members who are "tenacious." I subsequently have seen team members develop sharp elbows and become a bull-in-a-china-closet in their interactions with colleagues in other departments.
The term "diplomatic" is critical. Why? The word is defined as "Skill in managing negotiations, handling people, etc., so that there is little or no ill will; tact." Combine that skill set - the deft building and handling of relationships - with tenacity and you have a formula for success.
When explaining the phrase I used an example from earlier in my career. A colleague of mine and I were working to get our corporation to approve a major investment in a sponsorship partnership. This investment was not only significant for our company but it also was an unprecedented amount in the world of partnership marketing.
The two of us made 27 presentations - 27! - internally to senior leaders across the company. While some would likely define that as insanity ("the process of doing something that isn't working over and over"), we used the process to fine tune our presentation and sales effort each of the 27 times that we made our pitch. Ultimately, this "diplomatic tenacity" - the refusal to grow weary of the process and the numerous reasons "why not" - resulted in one senior exec pounding his hand on the table and saying "we must do this - it's the right thing for our company!"
Not everyone gets that once-in-career opportunity to doggedly work to gain approval on something that changes the direction of a brand. But, everyone does get a chance in their career to practice diplomatic tenacity.
To learn more, shoot me an email (mgoff@goffmarketing.com) - I'd love to help you and your team implement diplomatic tenacity within your organization.
Tuesday, February 14, 2017
The wind blows hard at the top of the brand totem pole
Have you seen it?
Nike's new "Equality" advertising, from Weiden + Kennedy, is work that we've come to expect from this brand. It's advertising that is integrated across channels, makes us think, stimulates conversation and, of course, utilizes athletes from the brand's stable of talent.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43QTjFCPLtI
Not only did the long-form TV spot run during The Grammy's telecast but the company also used a four-page spread ad in The New York Times to tell its story.
Unfortunately for Nike, the campaign has created the opportunity for critics to again take the brand to task for its former use of child labor, which was acknowledged in 1998. In the process, that critical commentary has reinforced the difficulties that a brand has in overcoming corporate missteps - even those that happened 20 years ago.
Nike has published, since 2005, a list of factories with which it does business. It also posts its commitments, standards and audit findings in an annual corporate social responsibility report. Yet, criticism still persists about what the company did in the past.
The wind on the brand totem pole blows very hard at the top. Nike discovered that before and is dealing with those high winds yet again. I suspect that there are many other global brands that wish they faced those sorts of challenges.
Nike's new "Equality" advertising, from Weiden + Kennedy, is work that we've come to expect from this brand. It's advertising that is integrated across channels, makes us think, stimulates conversation and, of course, utilizes athletes from the brand's stable of talent.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43QTjFCPLtI
Not only did the long-form TV spot run during The Grammy's telecast but the company also used a four-page spread ad in The New York Times to tell its story.
Unfortunately for Nike, the campaign has created the opportunity for critics to again take the brand to task for its former use of child labor, which was acknowledged in 1998. In the process, that critical commentary has reinforced the difficulties that a brand has in overcoming corporate missteps - even those that happened 20 years ago.
Nike has published, since 2005, a list of factories with which it does business. It also posts its commitments, standards and audit findings in an annual corporate social responsibility report. Yet, criticism still persists about what the company did in the past.
The wind on the brand totem pole blows very hard at the top. Nike discovered that before and is dealing with those high winds yet again. I suspect that there are many other global brands that wish they faced those sorts of challenges.
Monday, February 6, 2017
Experts disagree on Super Bowl LI advertising
It's an annual rite. On the Monday after Super Bowl, the water cooler/breakroom/coffee shop debate is always "which Super Bowl TV commercial 'won?'" Forget the game (even if Super Bowl LI was the most amazing Super Bowl ever), it's all about the commercials and which scored highest in USA Today's Ad Meter or captured the attention of critics in various media outlets, not to mention those spots that generated conversation at Super Bowl parties and morning-after conversations everywhere.
I asked 50 esteemed colleagues in the advertising, sports marketing, media and communications sector to let me know their favorites. I asked this group, representing agencies and companies from across the country, four questions:
- Which Super Bowl ad was most effective and why?
- Which Super Bowl ad was least effective and why?
- Which Super Bowl ad was most entertaining?
- Which ad is work that you wish you would have done?
Many of these colleagues have developed Super Bowl commercials; many have clients who had spots in the broadcast. Interestingly, their responses indicated no clear favorite commercial and in some cases the opinions were the direct opposite of one another.
Here's what they had to say.
Most effective commercial
- Airbnb. "Very simple and timely message about inclusion; fits the brand idea of home away from home." (Ad agency senior account leader) Another respondent, from the world of higher education, also liked Airbnb: "They managed to be timely and relevant. The #weaccept message was timely, brand relevant and likely to strike a chord with Airbnb's core audience of issue-oriented millennials."
- Busch. "The original 'Busch' can opening noise was a brilliant take...and was directly related to a sensory benefit of the product." (Chief Creative Officer at Midwest ad agency)
- H&R Block. "This one caught me by surprise - the use of Watson as basis for consideration and trial is very compelling." (Senior marketing consultant)
- "The timing of the diversity/immigration ads was amazing. I'm sure they were received 50-50 by the U.S. audience but the companies - Coke, Anheuser Busch, and even Airbnb - want to reach and appeal to their diverse audience and they nailed that." (Sports marketing agency owner)
- Budweiser. "Great American brand made by immigrants." (Agency founder and veteran of numerous Super Bowl commercials)
- Ford. "Go further versus being stuck - nice premise for getting across all the new dimensions of Ford's efforts."
- Michelin. "It's all about safety and security of your loved ones. Haven't they been saying that for awhile?"
- Kia Nero. "Entertaining, engaging, well produced and clearly focused on a single message - 'You may not be an Eco Warrior but you can drive like one.' Melissa McCarthy is great in this spot. I knew exactly what the brand wanted me to take away as a message." (Senior account leader in Midwest ad agency)
- "A tie based on the realities of the new world of advertising - Intel's promotion of Lady Gaga's drones and 84 Lumber's ability (at least based on my Facebook feed) to make a spot work THE DAY AFTER the game." (Senior marketing strategist)
- Audi. "They nailed it with 'equal pay'." (Communications agency owner)
- Avocado and Bud Light. "To me, they broke through the clutter with humor. Points also go to 'Bai, Bai, Bai' and the Melissa McCarthy Kia spot - again, they made me laugh and I was engaged with them immediately. Special mention to the Sprint ad because it was funny and strategic." (Senior marketer)
- "I thought the T Mobile ads were really good; at first, I wasn't so sure because the Bieber ad felt like just a bunch of famous people being thrown at me, but the 50 Shades spoofs were very funny and I think they hit the market of 'uncannier' by slamming Verizon in a very humorous, memorable way." (Business consultant and partner)
- Bai. "I'd never heard of them. Creative use of Justin Timberlake and his song was easy to get and memorable. Winner." (Agency executive) Another respondent, from the technology sector, also said Bai "for sure pure brand support."
- Coke. "I'm always a sucker for the Coca-Cola commercials. They give me the chills and don't shove anything down your throat as far as politics. Coke simply makes you associate love and happiness with their product. I want to go out and grab an ice cold coke as much as I want to help others and be inclusive." (Digital agency account leader)
- "No clear cut winner this year." (Sports marketing agency executive)
Summary: Bai, Audi and Kia were mentioned most frequently as ads that were effective.
Least effective commercial
- More than one of my colleagues mentioned the mobile gaming ads and movie trailers given "no relevance," their violence, and the dark tone of each of these commercials. One respondent said "Nothing but violence at a time when the country didn't really need that." Another said, "Enough with the bizarre movies and video games."
- "So many of the spots seemed to be bent on making a 'statement.' Normally, I might think those can be powerful but in today's climate I felt more of a turnoff than a positive." (Chief Creative Officer)
- "I'm sick and tired of being lectured about how I'm supposed to feel and act right now. All of the spots, from Coke to 84 Lumber to Budweiser, just turned me off completely." (Senior marketer)
Specific spots mentioned as least effective included:
- Busch. "Confusing to me as to their objective."
- Yellow Tail. "Learned nothing new."
- T Mobile. "A litany of quirky, punchy and awkwardly funny ads packed with more pop culture references than you could count."
- "The Busch and Bud Light ads were terrible; for a category that prides itself on high production quality, clever humor and sizzle, both the Busch guy and Spuds McKenzie were terrible."
- H&R Block. "Huge budget to spend on production and media and I'm very unclear what the product offering is and how it's different."
- Fiji water. "After viewing my reaction was 'Zzzz.'"
- Sprint. "Faking dad's death - so relatable. UGH!"
- Mercedes Benz. "I get the Fonda joke but way too subtle...strategically off the mark for this very speciality automobile."
- Honda. "The 'dream' spot neither advanced the perception of the brand, nor stood out, and the use of celebrities means they used WAY too much money."
- Buick. "I understand Buick wants to shift its audience but they're not to the point where they should have a polarizing, young sports figure as their featured actor. I don't exactly think 'Cam Newton' when pondering who might resonate with both Buick's old target (great grandparents) and their new target (Gen X, it seems.)"
Summary: Many ads were mentioned in response to this question with the above being a representative sampling. The most interesting outcome of this question was how the tone of the advertising turned off a significant number of respondents.
Most entertaining
- Kia. Multiple mentions.
- The Honda Yearbook ad received numerous mentions. "Great creative but I'm not sure it will sell cars." Another said, "Genuinely clever, fresh and original."
- Buick. "The Cam Newton spot." (Business owner)
- Squarespace. "The premise along with the chops of John Malkovich captured my attention. Ironically, while Squarespace may help you build a website, I'm unsure about its capability to buy domains."
- T Mobile. "These ads made me laugh out loud. The two ads I won't forget are the Coke 'It's Beautiful' ad and the Google Home ad. I imagine it's because I am feeling particularly raw within this divisive political climate but these two ads really hit a chord, made me smile and nod my head, and regain a little of the pride I have as an American watching America's most heralded sporting event."
- "The Snoop Dogg and Martha Stewart T Mobile spot." Another agency exec mentioned T Mobile, saying "Uncomfortably funny and memorable way to take on Verizon."
- Intel.
- "For pure entertainment, I like 'four years of bad hair' and also liked the AFLAC 'surgery' spot. The Turbotax stuff was pretty interesting; interesting use of Terry Bradshaw and the 'stain' by Tide."
- 84 Lumber. "Fantastic storytelling. Cinematic production. Compelling message with timely, relevant and polarizing subject matter. The only spot that inspired me to go to a website to see more of the story. I genuinely wanted to see more to complete the story." (Agency exec)
Summary: The spots mentioned most frequently as entertaining were Kia, Honda and T Mobile.
Work you wish you would have done
Multiple mentions went to...:
- Hyundai. "It would have been great to have been a part of such a touching idea and then putting the plan into motion."
- Bai.
- Audi. "Audi's spot will live on in Super Bowl retrospectives, and the hearts of their female target, for decades."
Others had the following feedback:
- Kia.
- Tide. "The level of broadcast integration was unprecedented. Perfect personality and foil in Terry Bradshaw."
- Google Home.
- 84 Lumber.
- H&R Block. "I believe it likely did the most for their business."
- Anheuser Busch. "It doesn't make me want to drink their beer but it's such a beautiful vignette. And, it gives me a warm feeling about their company."
- Coca Cola. "Simply beautiful. Shines a light on American diversity and communicates a sense of hope when America needs unity and healing. Simple idea, done well."
And, finally, from one of the most well-respected creative folks in the business, came this - "None."
Summary: No spot stood out as the one that everyone wishes they would have done but the Audi, Bai and Hyundai spots received multiple mentions.
If there was one key takeaway from this quick, qualitative research it's that there was no consensus...on anything. Respondents differed as to the political overtones of some of the advertising. And, some of the same ads drew both "effective" and "least effective" responses.
What I found most interesting is the response to the ads that included copy and imagery about inclusion and diversity. Not only was there disagreement as to whether the approach worked, there was deep emotion by some about anything remotely political invading the broadcast of the biggest U.S. sporting event of the year.
While both responses are certainly understandable, I'll leave you with this considered response from a colleague who felt that the Super Bowl was the perfect forum for this dialogue.
"It was overall very touching to see so many companies spend so much money to make statements about inclusion and being a good steward of the planet versus the typical hot women and over-the-top comedy we typically see. There was perhaps no better way to reach such an audience and basically say, 'What's happening in this country is NOT alright.' It is absolutely amazing to see boycotts of Budweiser...FREAKING BUDWEISER happening because they featured a short story about a German immigrant meeting Mr. Anheuser for the first time. One of the biggest dangers this country faces is letting discrimination, fear, hatred, etc. become normalized. It's good to see major corporations are doing their part to keep that from happening."
I asked 50 esteemed colleagues in the advertising, sports marketing, media and communications sector to let me know their favorites. I asked this group, representing agencies and companies from across the country, four questions:
- Which Super Bowl ad was most effective and why?
- Which Super Bowl ad was least effective and why?
- Which Super Bowl ad was most entertaining?
- Which ad is work that you wish you would have done?
Many of these colleagues have developed Super Bowl commercials; many have clients who had spots in the broadcast. Interestingly, their responses indicated no clear favorite commercial and in some cases the opinions were the direct opposite of one another.
Here's what they had to say.
Most effective commercial
- Airbnb. "Very simple and timely message about inclusion; fits the brand idea of home away from home." (Ad agency senior account leader) Another respondent, from the world of higher education, also liked Airbnb: "They managed to be timely and relevant. The #weaccept message was timely, brand relevant and likely to strike a chord with Airbnb's core audience of issue-oriented millennials."
- Busch. "The original 'Busch' can opening noise was a brilliant take...and was directly related to a sensory benefit of the product." (Chief Creative Officer at Midwest ad agency)
- H&R Block. "This one caught me by surprise - the use of Watson as basis for consideration and trial is very compelling." (Senior marketing consultant)
- "The timing of the diversity/immigration ads was amazing. I'm sure they were received 50-50 by the U.S. audience but the companies - Coke, Anheuser Busch, and even Airbnb - want to reach and appeal to their diverse audience and they nailed that." (Sports marketing agency owner)
- Budweiser. "Great American brand made by immigrants." (Agency founder and veteran of numerous Super Bowl commercials)
- Ford. "Go further versus being stuck - nice premise for getting across all the new dimensions of Ford's efforts."
- Michelin. "It's all about safety and security of your loved ones. Haven't they been saying that for awhile?"
- Kia Nero. "Entertaining, engaging, well produced and clearly focused on a single message - 'You may not be an Eco Warrior but you can drive like one.' Melissa McCarthy is great in this spot. I knew exactly what the brand wanted me to take away as a message." (Senior account leader in Midwest ad agency)
- "A tie based on the realities of the new world of advertising - Intel's promotion of Lady Gaga's drones and 84 Lumber's ability (at least based on my Facebook feed) to make a spot work THE DAY AFTER the game." (Senior marketing strategist)
- Audi. "They nailed it with 'equal pay'." (Communications agency owner)
- Avocado and Bud Light. "To me, they broke through the clutter with humor. Points also go to 'Bai, Bai, Bai' and the Melissa McCarthy Kia spot - again, they made me laugh and I was engaged with them immediately. Special mention to the Sprint ad because it was funny and strategic." (Senior marketer)
- "I thought the T Mobile ads were really good; at first, I wasn't so sure because the Bieber ad felt like just a bunch of famous people being thrown at me, but the 50 Shades spoofs were very funny and I think they hit the market of 'uncannier' by slamming Verizon in a very humorous, memorable way." (Business consultant and partner)
- Bai. "I'd never heard of them. Creative use of Justin Timberlake and his song was easy to get and memorable. Winner." (Agency executive) Another respondent, from the technology sector, also said Bai "for sure pure brand support."
- Coke. "I'm always a sucker for the Coca-Cola commercials. They give me the chills and don't shove anything down your throat as far as politics. Coke simply makes you associate love and happiness with their product. I want to go out and grab an ice cold coke as much as I want to help others and be inclusive." (Digital agency account leader)
- "No clear cut winner this year." (Sports marketing agency executive)
Summary: Bai, Audi and Kia were mentioned most frequently as ads that were effective.
Least effective commercial
- More than one of my colleagues mentioned the mobile gaming ads and movie trailers given "no relevance," their violence, and the dark tone of each of these commercials. One respondent said "Nothing but violence at a time when the country didn't really need that." Another said, "Enough with the bizarre movies and video games."
- "So many of the spots seemed to be bent on making a 'statement.' Normally, I might think those can be powerful but in today's climate I felt more of a turnoff than a positive." (Chief Creative Officer)
- "I'm sick and tired of being lectured about how I'm supposed to feel and act right now. All of the spots, from Coke to 84 Lumber to Budweiser, just turned me off completely." (Senior marketer)
Specific spots mentioned as least effective included:
- Busch. "Confusing to me as to their objective."
- Yellow Tail. "Learned nothing new."
- T Mobile. "A litany of quirky, punchy and awkwardly funny ads packed with more pop culture references than you could count."
- "The Busch and Bud Light ads were terrible; for a category that prides itself on high production quality, clever humor and sizzle, both the Busch guy and Spuds McKenzie were terrible."
- H&R Block. "Huge budget to spend on production and media and I'm very unclear what the product offering is and how it's different."
- Fiji water. "After viewing my reaction was 'Zzzz.'"
- Sprint. "Faking dad's death - so relatable. UGH!"
- Mercedes Benz. "I get the Fonda joke but way too subtle...strategically off the mark for this very speciality automobile."
- Honda. "The 'dream' spot neither advanced the perception of the brand, nor stood out, and the use of celebrities means they used WAY too much money."
- Buick. "I understand Buick wants to shift its audience but they're not to the point where they should have a polarizing, young sports figure as their featured actor. I don't exactly think 'Cam Newton' when pondering who might resonate with both Buick's old target (great grandparents) and their new target (Gen X, it seems.)"
Summary: Many ads were mentioned in response to this question with the above being a representative sampling. The most interesting outcome of this question was how the tone of the advertising turned off a significant number of respondents.
Most entertaining
- Kia. Multiple mentions.
- The Honda Yearbook ad received numerous mentions. "Great creative but I'm not sure it will sell cars." Another said, "Genuinely clever, fresh and original."
- Buick. "The Cam Newton spot." (Business owner)
- Squarespace. "The premise along with the chops of John Malkovich captured my attention. Ironically, while Squarespace may help you build a website, I'm unsure about its capability to buy domains."
- T Mobile. "These ads made me laugh out loud. The two ads I won't forget are the Coke 'It's Beautiful' ad and the Google Home ad. I imagine it's because I am feeling particularly raw within this divisive political climate but these two ads really hit a chord, made me smile and nod my head, and regain a little of the pride I have as an American watching America's most heralded sporting event."
- "The Snoop Dogg and Martha Stewart T Mobile spot." Another agency exec mentioned T Mobile, saying "Uncomfortably funny and memorable way to take on Verizon."
- Intel.
- "For pure entertainment, I like 'four years of bad hair' and also liked the AFLAC 'surgery' spot. The Turbotax stuff was pretty interesting; interesting use of Terry Bradshaw and the 'stain' by Tide."
- 84 Lumber. "Fantastic storytelling. Cinematic production. Compelling message with timely, relevant and polarizing subject matter. The only spot that inspired me to go to a website to see more of the story. I genuinely wanted to see more to complete the story." (Agency exec)
Summary: The spots mentioned most frequently as entertaining were Kia, Honda and T Mobile.
Work you wish you would have done
Multiple mentions went to...:
- Hyundai. "It would have been great to have been a part of such a touching idea and then putting the plan into motion."
- Bai.
- Audi. "Audi's spot will live on in Super Bowl retrospectives, and the hearts of their female target, for decades."
Others had the following feedback:
- Kia.
- Tide. "The level of broadcast integration was unprecedented. Perfect personality and foil in Terry Bradshaw."
- Google Home.
- 84 Lumber.
- H&R Block. "I believe it likely did the most for their business."
- Anheuser Busch. "It doesn't make me want to drink their beer but it's such a beautiful vignette. And, it gives me a warm feeling about their company."
- Coca Cola. "Simply beautiful. Shines a light on American diversity and communicates a sense of hope when America needs unity and healing. Simple idea, done well."
And, finally, from one of the most well-respected creative folks in the business, came this - "None."
Summary: No spot stood out as the one that everyone wishes they would have done but the Audi, Bai and Hyundai spots received multiple mentions.
If there was one key takeaway from this quick, qualitative research it's that there was no consensus...on anything. Respondents differed as to the political overtones of some of the advertising. And, some of the same ads drew both "effective" and "least effective" responses.
What I found most interesting is the response to the ads that included copy and imagery about inclusion and diversity. Not only was there disagreement as to whether the approach worked, there was deep emotion by some about anything remotely political invading the broadcast of the biggest U.S. sporting event of the year.
While both responses are certainly understandable, I'll leave you with this considered response from a colleague who felt that the Super Bowl was the perfect forum for this dialogue.
"It was overall very touching to see so many companies spend so much money to make statements about inclusion and being a good steward of the planet versus the typical hot women and over-the-top comedy we typically see. There was perhaps no better way to reach such an audience and basically say, 'What's happening in this country is NOT alright.' It is absolutely amazing to see boycotts of Budweiser...FREAKING BUDWEISER happening because they featured a short story about a German immigrant meeting Mr. Anheuser for the first time. One of the biggest dangers this country faces is letting discrimination, fear, hatred, etc. become normalized. It's good to see major corporations are doing their part to keep that from happening."
Wednesday, February 1, 2017
Chapter One: My Art to Start
Today is a new chapter.
Entrepreneur. Small business owner. My own boss.
Today is the day that I officially announce the formation of Goff + Marketing. It's chapter one in my new adventure of starting my own business.
I've spent the past two months doing what I imagine most entrepreneurs do - drinking a lot of coffee as part of the never-ending process of one-on-one networking meetings where I pick the brains of others for tips, for advice and, most importantly, for leads. It's been a fascinating journey, which is why I decided to document it here and will continue to do so as I maneuver through the road course of starting a business. (In NASCAR parlance, "this ain't no oval track.")
One thing I noticed right away is the surprise of who responds and who doesn't. Long-time colleagues that I thought would be there at my side, helping guide me and provide business ideas have suddenly gone off the grid. Conversely, I've been taken aback by those who have gone above and beyond to connect me with someone, to check back in, and to be there as a partner on my journey. And, I've reconnected with others that haven't been a part of my daily work network for years.
Observation number two is that those who have gone through this journey before me are very willing to help and to offer guidance on what to do and what to avoid. Some of my most valuable counsel has come as a result of these meetings, including the one new introduction who said "You've got to read Guy Kawasaki's The Art of the Start."
Already a fan of Kawasaki, I dutifully ordered the book off of Amazon as soon as our breakfast meeting concluded, received it two days later (thank you, Amazon Prime) and read it in about an hour. The first words in the book are from a Hasidic saying, "Everyone should carefully observe which way his heart draws him, and then choose the way with all his strength."
WOW. That him home immediately as the tug to start my own business had come weeks ago in a way that was even surprising to me. The risk of starting a new business, the uncertainty of a paycheck that varies from month to month, working out of a home office versus in a dynamic environment of diverse talents. Yet, the voice kept telling me "do it!"
Kawasaki's advice, in that very first chapter, continued to strike a chord:
1. Make meaning.
2. Make mantra, i.e., forget boring mission statements.
3. Get going.
4. Define your business model.
5. Weave a M A T - Milestones, Assumptions and Tasks.
I kept reading and never looked back.
So, is it art to start? My start-up may not be the most artistic and I likely will need to remind myself often of the above five things I need to accomplish. Yet, here I am - with some work in place (as a result of my "soft launch"), a business card in hand, a website that looks pretty good, a headful of ideas and the grey hair to reinforce the experience I provide to a client partner.
My heart is being drawn in this direction. Let me now choose it with all my strength.
Come join me on the journey.
Entrepreneur. Small business owner. My own boss.
Today is the day that I officially announce the formation of Goff + Marketing. It's chapter one in my new adventure of starting my own business.
I've spent the past two months doing what I imagine most entrepreneurs do - drinking a lot of coffee as part of the never-ending process of one-on-one networking meetings where I pick the brains of others for tips, for advice and, most importantly, for leads. It's been a fascinating journey, which is why I decided to document it here and will continue to do so as I maneuver through the road course of starting a business. (In NASCAR parlance, "this ain't no oval track.")
One thing I noticed right away is the surprise of who responds and who doesn't. Long-time colleagues that I thought would be there at my side, helping guide me and provide business ideas have suddenly gone off the grid. Conversely, I've been taken aback by those who have gone above and beyond to connect me with someone, to check back in, and to be there as a partner on my journey. And, I've reconnected with others that haven't been a part of my daily work network for years.
Observation number two is that those who have gone through this journey before me are very willing to help and to offer guidance on what to do and what to avoid. Some of my most valuable counsel has come as a result of these meetings, including the one new introduction who said "You've got to read Guy Kawasaki's The Art of the Start."
Already a fan of Kawasaki, I dutifully ordered the book off of Amazon as soon as our breakfast meeting concluded, received it two days later (thank you, Amazon Prime) and read it in about an hour. The first words in the book are from a Hasidic saying, "Everyone should carefully observe which way his heart draws him, and then choose the way with all his strength."
WOW. That him home immediately as the tug to start my own business had come weeks ago in a way that was even surprising to me. The risk of starting a new business, the uncertainty of a paycheck that varies from month to month, working out of a home office versus in a dynamic environment of diverse talents. Yet, the voice kept telling me "do it!"
Kawasaki's advice, in that very first chapter, continued to strike a chord:
1. Make meaning.
2. Make mantra, i.e., forget boring mission statements.
3. Get going.
4. Define your business model.
5. Weave a M A T - Milestones, Assumptions and Tasks.
I kept reading and never looked back.
So, is it art to start? My start-up may not be the most artistic and I likely will need to remind myself often of the above five things I need to accomplish. Yet, here I am - with some work in place (as a result of my "soft launch"), a business card in hand, a website that looks pretty good, a headful of ideas and the grey hair to reinforce the experience I provide to a client partner.
My heart is being drawn in this direction. Let me now choose it with all my strength.
Come join me on the journey.
Saturday, January 28, 2017
Adjectives and Adverbs
A former boss of mine, back in the day, once gave me a nugget of advice that was like a sticky note affixed to my career ever since. The advice came as he reviewed a document I intended to take to the company CEO, summarizing the results of a major project. The boss said, "you need to avoid adjectives and adverbs."
His advice centered on the need for facts, the avoidance of hyperbole and that, in his experience, adjectives and adverbs were words that jumped off of a page as red flags to those in C-suite jobs. In his opinion, which I grudgingly understood and eventually adopted, adjectives and adverbs became props for covering the truth - for trying to turn what actually were average results or expectations into something special.
I lost touch with that boss but have thought of him often over the past several days as I listen to our President. Here's hoping that advice I've used so often doesn't become irrelevant in our Presidential administration's new world order of language.
His advice centered on the need for facts, the avoidance of hyperbole and that, in his experience, adjectives and adverbs were words that jumped off of a page as red flags to those in C-suite jobs. In his opinion, which I grudgingly understood and eventually adopted, adjectives and adverbs became props for covering the truth - for trying to turn what actually were average results or expectations into something special.
I lost touch with that boss but have thought of him often over the past several days as I listen to our President. Here's hoping that advice I've used so often doesn't become irrelevant in our Presidential administration's new world order of language.
Thursday, January 26, 2017
What's a brand?
I'm always taken aback when clients and colleagues immediately default to "logo" when I talk about brand. I immediately reference this imagery, which is my consistent default for trying to help folks understand the difference between a logo...and a brand.
There are many definitions for what a brand really is but my long-time favorite is this one (paraphrased a bit) from Scott Bedbury, A New Brand World:
A brand is the sum of the good, the bad, the ugly and the off strategy. It is defined by your best product as well as your worst product. It is defined by award-winning campaigns as well as the god-awful ads that somehow slipped through the cracks, got approved and, not surprisingly, sank into oblivion. It is defined by the accomplishments of your best employee - the shining star in the company who can do no wrong - as well as the mishaps of the worst hire that you ever made. It is also defined by your receptionist or IVR system and the music your customers are subjected to when placed on hold. For every grand and finely worded public statement by the CEO, the brand is also defined by derisory public comments on product review sites or overhead in the hallway. Brands are sponges for content, for images, and for fleeting feelings. They become psychological concepts held in the minds of the public, where they may stay forever. As such, you can't entirely control a brand. At best, you can only guide and influence it.
Brands aren't controllable. But, to lack understanding as to what a brand is and how to guide it is to set the path toward failure.
There are many definitions for what a brand really is but my long-time favorite is this one (paraphrased a bit) from Scott Bedbury, A New Brand World:
A brand is the sum of the good, the bad, the ugly and the off strategy. It is defined by your best product as well as your worst product. It is defined by award-winning campaigns as well as the god-awful ads that somehow slipped through the cracks, got approved and, not surprisingly, sank into oblivion. It is defined by the accomplishments of your best employee - the shining star in the company who can do no wrong - as well as the mishaps of the worst hire that you ever made. It is also defined by your receptionist or IVR system and the music your customers are subjected to when placed on hold. For every grand and finely worded public statement by the CEO, the brand is also defined by derisory public comments on product review sites or overhead in the hallway. Brands are sponges for content, for images, and for fleeting feelings. They become psychological concepts held in the minds of the public, where they may stay forever. As such, you can't entirely control a brand. At best, you can only guide and influence it.
Brands aren't controllable. But, to lack understanding as to what a brand is and how to guide it is to set the path toward failure.
Sunday, January 22, 2017
Editorial authority in a Trump-ian world
"Editorial authority" or "brand authority" was a term used quite consistently at my former place of business. It was most often utilized to determine the breadth of equity that a brand had when considering that brand's world of influence. Said simply, the question we often asked clients was "if your brand were a magazine, what would you report on?" or "what would you have the consumer's approval to report on?" The answer was then used to construct the brand's editorial authority.
In the days since Friday and the Inauguration, and even before during this bizarre election cycle, I've observed that many individuals in my social media feeds feel that political commentary is definitely within their editorial authority. I'm sure the logic is "this is my country, he's the President...thus, I have authority to comment on him and his administration." Yet, I'm struck by my acceptance, or lack of, that editorial authority. I'm certainly more apt to give Gerald Seib of the Wall Street Journal or David Brooks of the New York Times my rapt attention on opinions pertaining to the Trump administration than I do Seth Davis, CBS Sports and Sports Illustrated college basketball expert, or Jeff Rosen, sports editor, Kansas City Star, both who have used social media for their own political commentary. And, my gosh, at the local and personal level of social media, how many of us have stated or thought about stepping away from social media given the number of "friends" who are commenting on everything associated with this Trump-ian world we're in? Whatever happened to photos of babies, videos of cats and the self-absorbed who apparently thought I cared about seeing a photo of what they had for dinner!?
Is the world in which we are living - a dystopian one if you believe our new President - a topic on which all of us can claim editorial authority? Apparently so, as judged by the pervasive tweets and posts from seemingly everyone that I follow or friend.
My wish is that everyone step back, take a deep breath, and determine their personal brand's editorial authority, particularly as relates to our new reality. When literally everyone is commenting, it all becomes noise.
If you are passionate about not normalizing Trump, fine - use social media as a platform for discourse and opinion. If you are passionate about expressing civil disobedience through organized marches or other outlets, great - use social media to post photos of you taking action. But, please, can we be fact-based, civil and intentional in our posts as opposed to the moron on my Facebook feed who claimed that "Trump got over a million fat women walking, nationwide, on his first full day in office"?
Clearly, this Facebook acquaintance (how can I call him a "friend") felt he had that editorial authority. I, his consumer, felt differently. The "de-friend" and "unfollow" buttons are useful tools at times like this.
In the days since Friday and the Inauguration, and even before during this bizarre election cycle, I've observed that many individuals in my social media feeds feel that political commentary is definitely within their editorial authority. I'm sure the logic is "this is my country, he's the President...thus, I have authority to comment on him and his administration." Yet, I'm struck by my acceptance, or lack of, that editorial authority. I'm certainly more apt to give Gerald Seib of the Wall Street Journal or David Brooks of the New York Times my rapt attention on opinions pertaining to the Trump administration than I do Seth Davis, CBS Sports and Sports Illustrated college basketball expert, or Jeff Rosen, sports editor, Kansas City Star, both who have used social media for their own political commentary. And, my gosh, at the local and personal level of social media, how many of us have stated or thought about stepping away from social media given the number of "friends" who are commenting on everything associated with this Trump-ian world we're in? Whatever happened to photos of babies, videos of cats and the self-absorbed who apparently thought I cared about seeing a photo of what they had for dinner!?
Is the world in which we are living - a dystopian one if you believe our new President - a topic on which all of us can claim editorial authority? Apparently so, as judged by the pervasive tweets and posts from seemingly everyone that I follow or friend.
My wish is that everyone step back, take a deep breath, and determine their personal brand's editorial authority, particularly as relates to our new reality. When literally everyone is commenting, it all becomes noise.
If you are passionate about not normalizing Trump, fine - use social media as a platform for discourse and opinion. If you are passionate about expressing civil disobedience through organized marches or other outlets, great - use social media to post photos of you taking action. But, please, can we be fact-based, civil and intentional in our posts as opposed to the moron on my Facebook feed who claimed that "Trump got over a million fat women walking, nationwide, on his first full day in office"?
Clearly, this Facebook acquaintance (how can I call him a "friend") felt he had that editorial authority. I, his consumer, felt differently. The "de-friend" and "unfollow" buttons are useful tools at times like this.
Thursday, January 12, 2017
It's still a world of relationships
"It's a relationship business."
How often have you heard that phrase? And, in a world filled with alternate forms of communication, self-expression and interaction, doesn't that phrase sound a bit dated and trite?
Be careful, my business friends and colleagues - he or she who under-estimates the importance of relationships is doomed to fail.
I'm in the midst of a current consulting assignment with a service company where relationships are the reason why a client prospect selects an advisor. The one-on-one, trusting relationship between client and advisor is why my business client company succeeds or fails.
A recent report from Advertiser Perceptions highlighted that two-thirds of all leading U.S. advertisers are planning creative agency reviews in the next year. Do you think relationships aren't important in (a) maintaining a client relationship or (b) starting a new one?
Relationships aren't the only reason why businesses succeed or fail or why clients seek new agency partners. But, you're naive if you think that they may not be the tipping point one way or the other.
Look up, lean in and listen the next time your client, business colleague and/or vendor partner is talking to you - it may be the difference in what success looks like for you in 2017.
How often have you heard that phrase? And, in a world filled with alternate forms of communication, self-expression and interaction, doesn't that phrase sound a bit dated and trite?
Be careful, my business friends and colleagues - he or she who under-estimates the importance of relationships is doomed to fail.
I'm in the midst of a current consulting assignment with a service company where relationships are the reason why a client prospect selects an advisor. The one-on-one, trusting relationship between client and advisor is why my business client company succeeds or fails.
A recent report from Advertiser Perceptions highlighted that two-thirds of all leading U.S. advertisers are planning creative agency reviews in the next year. Do you think relationships aren't important in (a) maintaining a client relationship or (b) starting a new one?
Relationships aren't the only reason why businesses succeed or fail or why clients seek new agency partners. But, you're naive if you think that they may not be the tipping point one way or the other.
Look up, lean in and listen the next time your client, business colleague and/or vendor partner is talking to you - it may be the difference in what success looks like for you in 2017.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)