Who Owns Your Brand?

A self-proclaimed social-media guru shared this advice with me: companies should pay close attention to what people are saying about their brand in social media so that they can recognize where the public has the wrong ideas about the brand, and use this information to drive brand messaging to rectify their errors.    It's an absurd notion, but one he seemed to take quite seriously, leading me to wonder about how widespread this misconception is.

The notion that a company dictates what its brand means to the public is so arrogant and wrong-headed as to be ludicrous.   Your brand exists in the mind of the market.   And if there is any disagreement between what you think of your own brand and what the market thinks of it, then you are the one who is wrong.   Granted, a firm may attempt to attempt to influence opinion of its brands and generally tries to spin it in a positive (and profitable) direction - but the brand exists in the market, not within the firm.

His statement, and the arrogant naivety with which he boldly made it, put me in mind of Gail Wynand, the (fictional) newspaper tycoon whose tragic flaw was believing that his newspaper dictated public opinion - but when he ran an unpopular editorial campaign, the public stopped buying his newspaper until the board of directors took control and reversed the paper's position.

There never was a way to control public opinion, and there likely never will be.  People come to their own conclusions, speak their own mind, and put greater trust in what their friends and neighbors have to say about a brand than the company who wishes to sell it, and whom they know to have an agenda to make others think positively about the brand no matter the truth.  I can understand how a company could delude itself into thinking its voice absolute during the age of mass-media where the voice of the customer was unheard - but especially in the age of social media, the customer's voice is out there for all to hear.

That is to say that the market owns brands - now more than ever.  You can label it "deluxe" and spend millions on an advertising campaign to promote the notion that it is high-quality.  But if your merchandise is poorly made, people will discover this and spread the news faster, further, and with a more credible voice than your marketing department and advertising agency.

They days when customers could be badgered and threatened into retracting negative remarks have also passed.  The old-school approach of silencing your critics when their criticism is entirely valid and warranted have also passed.   Companies that want to have customers say great things about a rotten product will find little success, and suffer an even worse reputation for having tried - whether proactively (by attempting to bribe or cajole) or reactively (by threatening and browbeating) - and their critics voices will gain all the more credibility when these tactics are discovered.

That is not to say that the voice of the public cannot be influenced or challenged - when there is a misperception, it can be corrected - but there's a stark difference between having an uninformed opinion and telling outright lies.   And for the most part, the public is spot on.   If a product is really great, people say good things about it; if it is truly rotten, they will say bad things about it; and if it's a matter of opinion, both sides will be heard - and others who listen to social media will weigh everything they hear and come to their own decision.

All of this boils own to a fundamental and inviolate truth: if you want public opinion of your product to be positive, then make a good product and provide good service - and the buzz will take care of itself.   Listen to the voice of the consumer as a matter of course, but when you find you're in disagreement, set aside your assumption that you're right and your critics are wrong.  It's usually exactly the opposite.

What is a User Experience Producer?

"What do you do for a living?" is a common and innocuous question, and one that I dread hearing in any social encounter. The job title of "Experience Producer" draws a response of "What's that?"  I have a quick answer of "I try to convince my employer to make buying and using products simple and understandable for the customer," some people are curious about how I go about doing so - which is no simple matter to explain.

So the conversation is frustrating and tedious, but it does cause me to reflect a great deal about the purpose and method of my life, insofar as my profession is concerned.  I have a long list of "things to think about" that I generally try to avoid thinking about, as the practice of defining what you do, like the practice of defining who you are, seems necessary but at the same time tainted with pedantry and narcissism - as everyone wants to think of the activities on which they spend the majority of their waking hours to be very important and finds it difficult to refrain from aggrandizing.  

A blue-collar laborer who manually tightens the bolts of the soap-dispenser inside a washing machine can likely spout a five-paragraph essay that makes him seem like the savior of the planet.  And so it follows that a white-collar worker who makes buying and using products simple can likely do the same, and can likely be far more elaborate.

I've seen obscene levels of elaboration in a number of industry discussion groups, in which someone asks the question "how do we define what we do?" and a long string of answers follows, which begins with a five-sentence description of the job and others edit and extend until it becomes a multi-paragraph manifesto that ends up being unfathomably vague and heavily seasoned with melodrama.

In general, my practice is to step back from the fray and find amusement in the irony of a pompous and incomprehensible mass of verbiage written by people whose vocation is (allegedly) to make things simple and understandable.

It's not that what they are attempting to do is unimportant - again, understanding what you are doing is critical to doing it well - nor do I have many objections to the fine details and subtle nuances that they are attempting to communicate.   But for all practical intents, when someone asks you what you do for a living, you should be able to answer in a single breath.

I do look forward to the day that the general public knows what a "User Experience Producer" is without having to explain further - with the same knowledge and familiarity they have with processions such as "accountant" or "lawyer" or "plumber."  It would make the ritual exchange of information when meeting someone for the first time so much easier.

But more importantly, if people knew what a User Experience Producer does, that would mean that it is a common profession.    And in order for it to be a common profession, that would also mean that a majority of firms seek to make their simple and effective for the customer.  What a wonderful world it would be, filled with products and services that do what we need with a minimum of effort, if the practice of user experience were taken that seriously on such a broad scale.

I'd very much like to live in that world, and give the majority of my waking hours working to achieve it.   But until I do, I expect that the best answer I can give is still the one I have spring-loaded when the question is asked:  "I try to convince my employer to make buying and using products simple and understandable for the customer."   I suppose it's as good a way as any to spend one's days.

Why Companies Fail to Innovate

What follows here is not so much a meditation but a collection of notes from an unstructured conversation about the reasons that companies fail to innovate.  The discussion strayed across a handful of entirely plausible reasons that intelligent people in organizations reject innovation.  So while this will likely be a bit more disjointed than my usual post ...


Managers are Trained to Optimize

Business schools train managers to optimize rather than innovate.  The difference is that optimization begins with an existing set of activities and seeks to make them more efficient, whereas innovation requires considering if an altogether different set of activities might produce a better outcome.

The practice of "scientific" management that is presently the dominant theory is entirely about optimization: Frederick Taylor watched as men shoveled coal, theorized what physical movements might be less tiring, experimented with different sizes and shapes of shovel, and the like to make the workers more efficient at doing exactly what they were already doing.   He did not pause to consider whether using a gasoline engine or geothermal energy might be more efficient than coal furnaces - there was no question of whether coal should need to be shoveled, just a question of how it could be shoveled more quickly.

The vast majority of business courses focus on optimization and efficiency, with maybe one or two chapters in the textbook that hint at innovation, but often shy away from it as if it is supernatural in nature and cannot be practiced or relied upon.  As a result, the managers with formal education in management practice what they were taught and are often rather uninspired when it comes to exploring entirely new possibilities.

As such, it is no accident at all that many of the CEOs who are legendary for pioneering new businesses and ignoring the well-beaten path of standard industry practices are not formally educated in the field of business.   Neither is it implausible that those who have formal training in business are very limited in their ability to innovate.


The Past is Safe 

I avoided making this my opening point, because discussions of this nature usually dismiss decision-makers as being ruled by ignorant fear - and then the discussion degenerates into a litany of complaints and stereotyping.  But in truth, those who have achieved positions of power by playing by the old rules are ruled by very well-considered fear that they may not prosper if the tules are changed.

Fear is not wholly a bad thing, because it keeps us safe from danger.   The man who strides into the high grass and refusing to "fear" the snakes is not brave man, but very stupid.  And before society made a mission of saving such people from themselves, many of them were removed from the gene pool by their own foolhardiness.

Fear is a survival instinct that gives us the inclination to avoid risk of harm.  But beyond a certain healthy measure it also gives us the inclination to avoid risk of any kind, preferring to do what is safe and familiar, and foregoing opportunities that are unusual and carry with them the possibility of failure.

Fear of this kind can be ignorant, as the paralyzed individual may not be aware of the facts (like, there are not any snakes in that grass) or may not know the way to proceed with caution to mitigate risks (walking slowly, probing ahead, listening attentively, etc.)

Dragging this meditation back to business - to continue doing the very same thing you did in the past, which has been proven successful by years of practice, is always less risky than trying to do something different.  You have no experience, no historical proof, that a proposed new way will be successful and are lead by careful consideration of this to cling to the present way ... and to reject innovation.


The Past is Proven

Along the same lines, the events of the past have resulted in evidence that can be perceived through the senses: we saw what was done, but can only imagine what might be done.  As such, when there arises a decision of whether to continue to do what has been done in the past versus trying something different, there's a lot more proof for the past and very little - none, in fact - for  the future.

A proposed future action is based on imagination, describing a plausible scenario, and speculating about the outcomes.   You simply cannot prove the results of something that has never been done before with the same level of evidence that you can prove the past.

And because we are geared to trust more in proven facts of the past  than unfounded speculation about the future, any choice between doing what is known and practiced versus what is unknown and unproven is weighted heavily against innovation.


Change is Difficult 

To state the obvious, a business is composed of many people doing many things in coordinated patterns.  It is comparatively easier for a single person to change his ways, break his patterns, learn new skills, and do the other tasks necessary to do things differently in future (though anyone who's tried to kick a habit will testify it's not as simple as it seems).

When a business wants to change its ways, many people must be trained in new skills, new facilities and equipment must be purchased, new suppliers engaged, new customers won, and new departments created and staffed.   It's a long, painstaking, and expensive undertaking to do something different, and much cheaper and easier to keep doing the same thing as before.

For that reason most businesses are steadfastly focused on their present operations, and very few have much sense of a future beyond the current fiscal quarter or year.   They do not question (and sometimes do not even remember) the reason that they do things as they presently do - and simply perpetuate their rituals without much thought unless some crisis makes them aware that they are becoming obsolete.


Many "Innovators" are Kooks

Perhaps the greatest barrier to innovation is the reputation and credibility of those who call themselves "innovators."   Most of them are narcissistic and undisciplined types who have a constant supply of quirky ideas and boldly propose that others should bear the labor and risk of making their wildest dreams into a reality.

Granted, to stereotype an innovator as a foolhardy imbecile is just as wrong as it is to stereotype an opponent of innovation as a fearful  coward.  But there are no stereotypes without prototypes, and there are plenty of them on both sides of the argument over innovation.

The way to tell the difference is that a bona fide innovator is a very thoughtful person.  He doesn't fall in love with an idea because it's his, because it's novel, or because it's cool - but because it makes sense.   He can describe the reason for making a change in terms of sound theory, and the course of action he prescribes is based on solid and plausible logic.

Unfortunately, such individuals are rare.  So instead, a different kind of self-proclaimed innovator tends to be dominant: the type who constantly comes up with wacky ideas he cannot justify, cannot explain in detail, and for which he cannot present a plausible argument.   These "idea men" don't bother with the details, but leave them for others to sort out - which is sure evidence that they have not invested much thought into them.

Experience with a few such characters often poisons an organization against innovation, and gives the fearful all the more reason to reject any innovative idea without investing the time to consider it.

***

A this point, my memory is spent.  I recall there being a few additional reasons that innovation has lost its appeal, and that organizations retreat to the comfort and safety of optimizing existing operations rather than exploring the possibilities ... but they've faded.   Perhaps they will return to me later.

The Abilities of a Leader

In a previous blog article I briefly mentions the four critical abilities of leadership.  I didn't elaborate on those at the time, as it would have been a distraction from the topic, but I've since had a few conversations about it and now have the sense that it would be useful, though a bit tedious, to elaborate.

Specifically, I wrote that.

The ability to lead is more easily measured in the behaviors of a person.  A leader can articulate his goals, define a plan to accomplish them, persuade others to contribute to the effort, and to maintain the morale of his followers over a long period of time.   Anyone who does less may be a boss or a manager, but is not a leader.

The elaboration follows.


The Ability to Articulate Goals

The ability to articulate a goal is critical to a leader because the accomplishment of a goal is the justification for the existence of leadership.   Simply stated, if you have nothing in mind to accomplish, you have no functional need of followers.

The use of the word "functional" may seem a little clumsy, but it is necessary: there are psychological needs that drive a person to seek to be in a position of authority ("authority" rather than "leadership" is another important distinction) - the desire to have a sense of esteem and power motivates many to seek to become leaders when there is no functional purpose in leading others.   This is generally not functional.

The notion of functionality is also critical to a follower's decision to get behind a leader.  And again, there are those who have no sense of purpose and low self-esteem who will readily obey to directions of others without considering whether there is a purpose or benefit to doing so.   But it stands to reason that in most instances the loyalty of a follower to a leader without a clear purpose is weak and temporary.

The term "articulate" is also significant, particularly in established organizations, because a leader does not necessarily invent a goal on his own but may be tasked by an organization to accomplish a goal - which the leader is then handed and expected to articulate to others.

In many instances, a leader derives a specific goal from a more general one - such as considering an organization's mission statement and discovering goals that would be supportive of the accomplishment of that mission.


The Ability for Form a Plan

There are many people who have grand visions of things they wish to accomplish, but no plan for how to go about accomplishing them.  Such men are dreamers, not leaders.

I should also stress that the task of the leader is to "form" a plan - not to "have" one on his own.   In some instances a leader may have a vision and seek the assistance of others in formulating a plan to achieve it - particularly where the leader lacks personal experience or knowledge in areas necessary to accomplishing a plan, it is wise of him to engage others in developing the plan.  This may be seen as leadership in two phases - to lead the team that forms a plan, then to lead another team to execute upon it once the plan has been formulated.

In the absence of a plan, leadership is short-lived: those who follow will feel that their loyalty has been misplaced and will drift off.   Not only with the leader fail in his present goal, but will have a more difficult time finding followers in future.

It can also be argued that an organizational leader may be given a plan, rather than being asked to form one.  This is particularly true of the lowered echelons of leadership.   But even then, my sense is that a leader considers the plan he has been given and exercises some judgment in determining that the goal would most efficiently be achieved by the original plan, or deciding to substitute some other plan to better effect its achievement.


The Ability to Persuade Others 

Once a goal is defined and a plan formulated, a leader must then attract followers whose support is necessary to execute upon the plan.   Otherwise, the goal will not be accomplished.

Cooperation is often taken for granted: that if the objective is attractive and the plan is sound, followers will fall in line.    Sometimes, it even works out exactly thus.   But in most instances, the leader must apply persuasion, to demonstrate that the goal is worthwhile, the plan is sound, and that their participation is both necessary and rewarding.

In commercial organizations, this step is often neglected.  Resources are allocated to a project, in organizations in which people are treated with no more dignity and respect than equipment or raw materials.  The promise of money or the treat of termination are often sufficient for a commercial leader to obtain the help he needs to execute his plan.

But even under those circumstances, persuasion is useful: a person who is bribed or threatened into doing something will not be truly motivated to give his best effort.   He will follow orders to the letter and do no more than necessary to earn the bribe or protect himself from the threat.

Far too many incompetent leaders reply on these methods, which explains why many organizations are minimally efficient in accomplishing their goals.


The Ability to Maintain Morale

The ability to maintain morale is critical through the execution phase of an undertaking.   It is human nature to have a high level of enthusiasm about accomplishing a goal, and then to see that enthusiasm wane.   For that reason, many things are begun that are never finished, or are finished but fail to achieve the outcome that was intended.

For that reason, morale cannot be assumed to be self-sustaining.   When there are delays, when the work turns out to be harder than inspected, when  there arises uncertainty that the plan will achieve the goal, people lose their enthusiasm and apply themselves with less diligence and vigor.

To be successful as a leader means seeing that the goal is accomplished, not merely starting off a process and then hoping that it turns out well without any further effort.   The leader must work to maintain morale throughout the execution phase.


Other Abilities of a Leader

I have given some consideration as to whether this set of four abilities are all that is required for a person to be successful as a leader.   Try as I might, I can't think of any other ability that is strictly necessary, though many skills contribute to these four.

Should I discover a fifth, I'll update this post or add another that references it.

Advertising Transformed

I approached Fons Van Dyck's book on the "new rules for the digital age" with some trepidation: there's been a great deal of hype about the way that advertising will be transformed by the new media ... there always has been, and yet nothing seems to have changed in over twenty years since the birth of the (commercial) Internet.   But the author makes a very good case that the nature of the market has undergone a radical change, but that most advertisers (and marketers in general) simply haven't caught on yet.

In essence, the digital age is one of transparency, whereas advertising is a practice that counted on opacity: the belief that the advertiser was the only source of information about his products was never entirely true, but was a serviceable perspective given that the mass media was funded by advertisers.   Consumers had very little opportunity to get objective information about products from those whose intentions were anything other than to wheedle them into purchasing, and had very little recourse or opportunity to warn others about false claims.   All of that has changed.

But that doesn't mean that advertising is dead, merely that the rules have changed.   In the present day, the advertiser is merely a voice in the crowd, and cannot spread disinformation or prevent the unfortunate truth from being spoken by anyone else.  The majority of information about their product reaches their desired audience from voices more credible than their own.   Neither, in competitive markets, can they count upon customers to come begging or tolerate their imperious take-it-or-leave-it attitude when there are many other sources that are more accommodating.

However, it is not strictly true that marketers have lost the ability to disseminate information - they still can, but do not have the same level of control.  Consider that Apple, which receives great word-of-mouth from legions of rabid fans, still spends about $1.1 billion per year in advertising to teach their loyalists what to say to others.    It's also been shown that the most communicative individuals in social media do not originate information so much as they pass along information they have received from the mass media, and the one percent of social media users who create original content are often heavily inspired by information they receive from traditional advertising.

It should also be considered that the burden of research has shifted to the producer.   That is to say that they cannot count on customers to undertake the effort to learn about their product, but must themselves undertake the effort to learn about their customers.   Rather than count on customers to discover them, they must be aggressive in communication that their brand offers a good price/quality ratio, inspire confidence, make their brand reliable and trustworthy.

In fact, the only reason an advertiser should be fearful of digital media is when it is their intent to be dishonest - to lie or to attempt to hide an unflattering truth.   Social media abhors dishonesty, will not tolerate impostors, and will inevitably expose them: but this is true of anyone who lies - critics as well as producers - and when a brand is unjustly denigrated, it can count on having many defenders.

Thus considered, honest advertisers likely need to do very little to accommodate the new rules of digital media: keep using traditional media to spread the word, and count on social media to spread it even further.   As to dishonest advertisers, there is no advice for continuing that practice in the face of an informed and communicative public who will recognize and squelch hype and disinformation.  And that's likely a good thing.