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.
Saturday, January 28, 2017
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)