Build A Better Box

Infomercials are full of them: those enticements that operators are standing by, that callers in the next 13 minutes will receive a bonus gift, and that every order placed will also include a free set of steak knives, additional 1-month supply, or three extra pair with every three pair ordered. But wait... there's more! If you rush $19.95 (plus $8.95 shipping and handling) to the address below, we'll also throw in the incredible Mini Shred-O-Matic at no extra charge, just for trying out the Lard Magic (TM) Home Cholesterol Dessert Kit in the privacy of your own kitchen!

Remember when "free stuff" was the norm, and there was always a little something extra to sweeten the deal, no matter what the product or service offered? There was a time not long ago when a fill-up at the gas station (which was often full-serve) usually had an attendant running around the car washing windows, topping off fluids, and checking oil. Grocery stores routinely passed out free samples at every aisle end cap (no need to eat lunch: just head to the supermarket at meal time.) Banks gave away radios for signing up for accounts. Sure some of this is still around, but it's certainly not as common. In an effort to stay "competitive", businesses have swung the machetes and cleared all this stuff from the picture. But being competitive is more than just about saving a few bucks for the consumer. Value means more than being 5% cheaper than the next guy, or ten cents a pound lower than everyone on the block. It means offering the extras in the package experience, even if subsidized in cost by the main purchase price itself.

Some production companies we know of charge clients for lunch, line-iteming the measly few extra dollars on their bill. This is after the client may have dropped $2,000 or more for a day of editing. And how about the example of airlines now charging for each piece of luggage checked, every bottle of water served, and no more peanuts and snacks? Tell you what: how about just charging me an extra $50 for the ticket and including all that stuff, like the recent "good old days?" Is the price increase really going to stop me from going on my long-planned and much needed family vacation? If all airlines did this, it'd be the expected norm, and all could still compete without having to cut the valued frills and inclusions.  Most people may not feel gouged by the extra $50, but they will feel short-sheeted by having to pay a la carte for a $2 pair of rental headphones or a quarter's worth of soda in a half a cup of ice. Times may have changed, but the need for not feeling nickel-and-dimed has not.

There is some irony here. As companies feel compelled to compete by cutting prices by 10%, they create customers who say, "I'm paying all this money and they have the nerve to charge me extra for stuff they used to throw in free?" News flash, folks:  that stuff was never "free".  It was just buried into the purchase. But did we care? No. We valued and appreciated the extras. And we flocked to the places that offered this stuff. Most of the time, we still do. But not all businesses look at it this way.

It's gotten to the point where we can't even go to a grocery store and expect to necessarily have a human being ring up our food: You want faster service, use the self-checkout lines. And there's irony here, too: how many of us routinely get through these things without them crashing on us at least once, requiring a [human] attendant to come bail us out and clear the errors? But wait... there's less! We even get to bag our own groceries and - sometimes - pay extra for the bags.

It's natural for things in our lives to increase in street price over time; from bread to gas to a cup of coffee. Cell service, cable TV, movies. Up, up, up. And when air fare goes up, it goes up.

Just please don't take away my peanuts.

It's interesting how so much in life - from personal to professional - has become "all in one".  From diverse multi-vehicle investment portfolios, to technological products that can both make a glass of ice water and play a TV show (my next fridge?), to one-stop-shop media agencies, to consultants versed in six subjects and seven languages, it seems no longer are the days when any one commodity or entity can serve only a single role and not be subject to scrutiny.  Yet, we all still look for specialists and the "best" any particular thing has to offer.  Who's willing to buy a toaster oven/clock radio if the unit performs neither function very well?  But find something that does three or four things to a high level of ability, and ears start perking up.

I was just watching the online preview video for the new forthcoming iPhone 3G and am amazed at how many things that little guy will do all in one package, and all seemingly well.  I'd seen enough earlier incarnations of the iPhone to already be impressed.  It reaffirms the notion that not only are people asking for all-in-wonders, but that such devices can actually be developed and delivered.  But the irony is in the name itself: "iPhone."  After all, it is the phone that got it all started.  But this device is equal part phone as much as everything else it does.  How long will it be before Apple re-launches the product under a new, non-partisan name - such as iThing?

Nonetheless, despite all this "progress" in Swiss Army Knife product and service offerings, there are the legions of purists devoted to their tried-and-true, single purpose stuff.  A refrigerator that just keeps food cold. (Impossible!)  An alarm clock that only beeps at you, and doesn't shuffle between 2000 songs and project a laser light show on the ceiling. (Egads! How primitive!)  Or a cell phone that just... well, makes phone calls. (Can't be!)  Or how about an ad agency that just does really, really good advertising. (Huh?)  Sometimes we want our stuff to just do what it's supposed to do, and do it really well.  And that's fine.  But in the larger picture, how many of these services add real value to the package (or the core offering) as opposed to merely being "add ons" of only marginal use or quality (if any?)

But as for me? I'm checking out that new iPhone as soon as it hits the streets! 

Go figure.

Recently, I read an article that talked about the power of advertising; specifically how car and liquor ads entice the younger generation to drive too fast and drink too much.  A “national study” had been done that suggests this is so.  No doubt, countless hours had been devoted to the exhaustive research and analysis that led to this brilliant conclusion: advertising actually seems to have an affect.  Egads!  People are influenced by what they see!  It took a national study to conclusively prove what tens of thousands of marketers hadn’t known since the dawn of advertising: that yes, indeed, we are Pavlovian lemmings who are persuaded by what we are exposed to. Who knew?

If kids can be compelled to buy that sporty new 8-cylinder death trap and terrorize the neighborhood streets, could they also be compelled to buy $100 sneakers, expensive portable music players, and unlimited calling cell phone service?  Or worse, how about being influenced to “Be cool, stay in school,” “Just say no,” or “Rock the vote?”  Eek.  One can only hope not.

What was of obvious amusement to me was that the researchers behind the study and the subsequent newspaper story portrayed the findings as a great epiphany.  How had no one seen this coming?  “Hey guys, we just produced an ad for our new 2-seater, and, sure as Noah cut a few trees down, kids are actually buying them!  They’ve also been caught driving too fast, but that’s probably bad parenting.”

OK, so this is all a bit tongue-in-cheek, but the point is that the power of story is all around us – from corporate videos to logo-embroidered baseball caps to car ads - compelling us to buy stuff and act in certain ways.  It doesn't take a national study to figure this out.  

As in "Keep It Simple Stupid".  This applies to about 78,000 different situations in life (this is just a rough guess; I didn't count) not the least of which is when we pitch to clients.

We've all probably heard or studied a bit about the concept of one's "six word story" or "elevator pitch".  Those require a bit of work to frame properly, to really dig into one's inner workings to extract the brand essence - the DNA - of what we are all about.  Just as in the world of the thirty-second TV spot where an audience needs to be ensnared and held in a short period of time, so too must our own pitch effectively engage our audience quickly and concisely.

At a recent industry meeting, our group hosted a guest speaker - the talented Gilda Bonanno - who has an interesting background: a motivational speaker who is also part of an improv acting troupe.  She introduced the group to a couple of interactive exercises, one of which is called "Half Life."  The gist of the exercise is that the room would split into pairs of people, and we were all given a universal topic to discuss - in our case, "a day at the beach".  A timer was set to 64 seconds, and each pair had to engage in a one-on-one improv dialog with one another, creating a little made-up story.  At the end of the allotted time, the timer was reset to 32 seconds - half the time, hence the name "Half Life".  We were then instructed to engage in the same basic story to one another in half the original time.  After the time was up - you guessed it - the clock was reset to 16 seconds, and we repeated.  At 8 seconds, it was tough - but most of us managed.  Many laughs ensued, and it brought the group together with a wonderful dynamic in the air!

What we all learned was the importance of how to carefully choose one's words, with limited time to express them.  As the time limit grew progressively shorter, we were forced to trim the fat and only retain the stuff that mattered when relaying our story back and forth.  Fluff and extraneous color hit the cutting room floor - so to speak - with just the distilled backbone of the story remaining. 

The entire exercise reminded me of a high school creative writing class where we were all instructed to take one of our own poems and scrutinize each and every line, putting them on a sort of defensive literary trial, culling every word that absolutely did not contribute to the greater welfare of the ultimate message.  We weighed whether each word was enough of an anchor or necessary brick in the wall.  If not, it got the axe.  It was amazing to see how many poems wound up being boiled down to a mere fraction of their former mass.  It was an early view to what I'd later see in the "six word story" concept.  And that particular exercise actually paid off for me; applying it led to winning an Illinois Poet Laureate Award.  True story. (Results not typical; do try this at home.)

Think about all this the next time you need to frame a pitch - whether working on a new business proposal, or a casual networking social around the cocktail weenies and cheese platter.  And if nothing else, it also works great when saying grace around the dinner table.

Amen. 

(As a related post, please check out our friend Drew McLellan's thoughts here.)

There's a dangerous game being played out there.  And the stakes are high.

Specifically, it's a game between the world of staffing and their potential new recruits.  Nobody is asking enough questions, from the prospective employee - who's afraid of blowing a chance at a job - to the employer, who's afraid of scaring off a good candidate.  Too often, there is a misalignment between a new recruit and employer, but it's not discovered  - or addressed - until it's too late. 

Consider the employee who is on the job for six months, has undergone the start of an expensive training process, and has begun the mutual integration of his or her own life with that of the company, only to realize that he/she hates the job, hates the processes and procedures, and perhaps even hates the core values and mission of the company.  What's left?  Quit, or get fired ("de-hired" in common politically correct speak.)  Either way, nobody wins this game.

It used to be that a person would put on the proverbial suit and tie - dress for success - when job seeking.  The potential employer usually had the upper hand.  They had several good, qualified candidates from which to select.  Labor was plentiful.  Now, the tables are turned a bit: it's the company who must also don the shirt and tie.  Although the national unemployment rate is certainly not non-existent, simply "getting a job" is no longer the overwhelmingly strong factor it once was for someone to commit to a new employer.  Skilled labor in many areas is harder to come across, and an employee with real skill and talent wants to know there's more to their compensation than just a paycheck.  They want to know that their own personal values and vision are congruent with  those of their employer; that their work is being respected; that they will advance and grow and receive professional development. 

One of our large corporate clients addressed many of these issues by working with us to create a recent groundbreaking communications piece.  Part "Scared Straight", part "What to Expect When You're Expecting", and part positive-spin marketing, the video demonstrated some typical on-the-job scenarios, depicted through a combination of realistic re-enactments and actual employee dialog through engaging interviews.  The logic behind this bold tactic was that potential new employees would get a sneak preview of things to come before they accepted the position.  The employer would realize tremendous savings in quarterly training and development, and potential employees would avoid being engaged in a job with which they'd not be comfortable.  It's a win-win, and good karma would abound.

For the most part, today's new generation of recruits is much more aggressive - and fickle.  And they are starting to ask more questions and make more careful evaluations of prospective employers.  In times past, once retained, employees might stay loyal to the company for as long as the company would have them.  But now, it's not uncommon for younger employees to voluntarily switch jobs several times more often than their previous-generation counterparts.  They are more interested in exploring their options and playing the field than before.  To be a "job seeker" in the past usually meant to be unemployed.  But now, even the gainfully employed may well be looking for something better in their mind.  It's not just enough to earn the signing on of a new employee; an employer must work hard to earn their staying on, as well.  For sure, businesses must be aware of the more fragile nature of the employee-employer culture of today. 

Just like "Til death do us part" has become a bit of an antiquated notion (witness the 50% or so divorce rate), so, too, is the tenuous state of recruitment and retention.  Have "company careers" gone by the same wayside, right along with multi-album record label deals, like so many bands had in the '70s and '80s?  Are companies looking for "hit singles" in their employees, rather than developing them into feature-length careerists?  And how do companies stand out amongst each other while competing for the same resources?  Are they addressing the modern core values of today's influx of new recruits?  In the end, it's the company that's willing to listen and align with this special audience - their talent pool - that ultimately will be the victor.

If it weren't for a wood shortage in England, I wouldn't be here. As a kid, that's the story my mother used to tell me. John Alden - one of the original Plymouth settlers and Mayflower Pilgrims - was a cooper by trade. He was sent over on the voyage from England to repair and maintain the wooden barrels used to store food and liquids, as wood was in short supply and the cost of material replacement higher than the cost of skilled repair.

My mother is a professional genealogist. From a young age, I'd grown up in a house full of stories - other people's. Mom revels in the discovery of a long-lost 3rd cousin (twice removed) on my great-great-great grandfather's side. Or perhaps a story from 140 years ago about how an entire small town might have been founded through an inherited plot of land. Her several published books and directories are full of these names and their stories, immortalized in text for reference by future family seekers. Long after our ancestors have passed away, the stories of those people  - especially through their own documented genealogies - live on and on. And we learn from and are inspired by them, affecting our lives and those of our descendants for generations down the line.

Although it took growing up to reflect more on all this, I'd been taught something important - and it's a lesson all of us should keep in mind. Whether thinking as an individual or as a company, it's critical to consider the shelf life of the actions we take and messages we spread. Like fleeting sand castles, the stuff we make doesn't last nearly as long as the residual effects: the memories of their creation and of the building process. For example, the brand impact of Apple within its market can live long enough for consumers to buy Mac after Mac as each is replaced over time. Our Macs don't last a lifetime, but our loyalty to the brand can.

Think hard about the lasting equity we can create in our own stories, and treat them as investments in ourself and in our businesses. At the end of the day, have we created something of true legacy that people will talk about, learn from, and be inspired by? Our stories are timeless, and will resonate long after we do.

First, the stuff we already know: Great things happen when people blog... they get out of their boxes and communicate with the world.  Perhaps the ultimate form of the First Amendment in electronic form, blogging has the power to inspire and create change unlike most other forms of expression we know.  Foremost, it's an interactive platform that elicits feedback and inspires dialog.  Combined with the pervasiveness of the Internet, it allows our words a near limitless audience, bound universally by both wires and wireless.

I've posted briefly on blogging before, and there is a topical question that remains today one of the most common discussions in business communications: "Why don't more businesses blog?"  This is especially true in the larger corporate world.  As blogging is often an entrepreneurial mindset, we consequently see most blogs coming from the individual or small business level.  And although - as Doc Searls pointed out in a recent Webcast with Jay Deragon - some prominent large organizations are using blogging and Web 2.0 in their communications and branding efforts, it remains true that many larger, influential corporations are simply not engaging in this arena enough - or even at all.  After all, what is a corporation but a box of people?  The scale or scope of the organization matters not; whether a ten-person design shop or a 10,000-person insurance giant, companies - at their core - consist of the hearts and minds of human beings, not merely machines, desks, and inventories.  And those humans are the transceivers of the branding soul of their companies.  It is their voices that resonate within and without the walls of an organization.  And it is precisely why they should blog.

And at an individual level, many of them do.  They often participate in groups like LinkedIn or Facebook, and are often familiar with the world of blogging, networking, and the concept of personal branding.  Yet their companies often shy away from formal participation in these areas.  Why?  Why would an organization avoid - and often discourage - corporate connectivity at the 2.0 level?

There are perhaps many reasons, ranging from protection over a brand and how it is conveyed, to a desire to control the dialog of its people.  But I see this as counterproductive, backward logic.  By a corporation silencing the dialog and expression of its employees, it has also stifled its closest and strongest source of brand ambassadorship.  A company of 10,000 employees effectively has 10,000 marketing assistants, on call 24/7/365.  That's a lot of free publicity effort.

Although blogging at the corporate level can be primarily driven by employees through their own words, it is also a medium through which hired marketers and public relations pros may ghost write the content - and this in itself is an oft-debated tactic (see Morgan McLintic's thoughts here, for example.)  A story may be better framed by a professional, but isn't it the honest sincerity and soul of an actual employee's words that can make a blog genuine to its readers?  And what of anonymous blogging, when the writer is completely transparent to readers? (See Teresa Valdez Klein's quick post.)

Here's another one: the educational sector.  In a recent Hartford Business Journal article, it was pointed out that there were currently fewer than three dozen college heads around the entire U.S. with blog sites.  Compared with the number of accredited colleges and universities in our country, that's a paltry number.  It's also a bit ironic in that among the greatest features of blogging is its educational aspect. 

In all sectors, blogging puts a face to a leader, enhancing his or her image and connection to the world.  It adds color, depth, credibility, and accessibility to an otherwise oft-one-sided relationship.  And this also applies to everyone within an organization, of any shape or form, from the ground floor up.

What are your thoughts on this?

There's a post over on Tim Ferris' blog site that poses the question (and I'm paraphrasing here), "What sort of behavior should people stop doing?"  It started with a story of his about author Will Bowen - a minister from Kansas City - who launched the idea of a purple wrist bracelet to wear as a reminder to stop complaining. Be sure to read the full text of the post; it's quite interesting.

At any rate, Tim's challenge to readers was to consider other behaviors to stop.  And several good ones were suggested.

I already mentioned this as a comment to his post, but here's a good behavior *I* think is important to get away from: Stop passing the buck.

People should be more willing to be accountable for their own actions, take responsibility, and not automatically lay blame on someone else (or someTHING else, at times.)  Especially common in the workplace, passing the buck can be counter-productive and can demonstrate a lack of integrity, maturity, honor, and leadership.  While one may see this practice as merely a self-preserving escape route, it also represents a bit of negative testimony to that person's character.

Which would you rather hear: "The mess up with the new system? Bob was really more to blame than I" -or- "Although others may have been involved, I was part of the problem and I'm willing to share in the responsibility." 

If this were in a vendor-client situation, how well would this bode for either party?  A vendor or provider of true character would be willing to accept responsibility.  And this applies to clients who fail in their share of the team effort, as well.  In any mutually beneficial collaborative effort, success is dependent upon honesty, accountability, and good communication.

I think it's generally more respectable to stand up and take your lumps.   You'll look better for it.

Over on LinkedIn recently, it was asked if golf still made the best choice for business networking. This was the gist of my reply:

As an avid good-weather golfer (as opposed to bad weather?) I find a day out on the links to be a great opportunity for several reasons. But not all these reasons are exclusive to golf, of course. You can get to know your clients, business partners, suppliers, and other associates outside the normal "work" context. You let your hair down a bit and tend to relax, feeling a bit like a high school kid playing hooky. And in terms of skill, one need not be a pro to mesh well on a course. Also, with the competitive nature of the game, it's an excellent way to see how your clients or business associates handle themselves under pressure, or how they treat competition itself.

I've generally found that the way one carries oneself on the course is often a reflection of how one carries oneself off the course. Does he casually kick his ball a few feet to get a better lie, or does he take it on the chin and play it fairly from where it lies? And if he does move his ball, does he do so unabashedly, or does he do so surreptitiously - hoping no one will see his actions? Does he count every stroke after the hole is finished up, or does he fudge the math a bit? Does he take a "gimme" or Mulligan every chance he gets? Is he courteous to the other players, and does he have general respect for game play?

If one of the associates in your foursome knows the rules well - and acknowledges them to others - is he lenient to those who might be new to the game, helping them along the way? Or is he an unforgiving stickler, challenging that, "The only way to learn is the school of hard knocks!"

You can even tell much from the associates in your foursome by the way they carry themselves, the manner of their attire, and the condition with which they treat and keep their equipment. What is their posture and body language like? Are they generally sloppy in their stance and play - even if given credit for being a "newbie?" Are their clubs beat up and look as though they haven't been cleaned in five years? If everything is polished to a shine, and not a hair out of place or so much as a wrinkle in their pants, what might this say - good or bad - about the way in which they may conduct their business? (A psychoanalyst would have a field day here!)

Golf has always been a crossroads where those from all areas of business, and in all positions - from VPs to IT gurus - can converge. There are certain visceral aspects of the game that transcend salaries, job descriptions, and bank accounts. And there are few comparable platforms involving the elements of character, demeanor, strategic and tactical aptitude, and social graces that a day of business networking on a golf course can afford. (Plus, where else can one wear orange plaid pants and get away with it?)

Being an appropriate time of year - and being of partial Pilgrim and Native American descent - I'd been thinking about how we can all learn from some of the metaphors in the stories of the original settlers:

1. Particularly in a new market or surroundings, look to your peers for support. I've found our own industry - especially through trade associations and groups - to be generally quite helpful to each other. Newcomers can benefit greatly by getting involved, and can learn much from others in their field, from referrals on freelance help to advice on positioning and finding clients. The "enemy" need not always be seen as a threat; when on their familiar turf, they may actually be one of your best allies.

2. Collaborate. Just as with an old-fashioned barn raising, nothing gets done faster and more efficiently than teamwork. Every day we see smaller shops pooling their resources and best talents on a project - effectively also narrowing the field by one less "competitor" - with both shops reaping the rewards.

3. Trade/barter. OK, maybe we aren't exchanging horse shoes for sacks of grain these days, but the analogy is the same. Perhaps you or your company has a particular service you might offer someone in exchange for something they may offer. For example, rather than give something away on spec or pro bono, offer to trade for something of equal and useful value. Perhaps design services for marketing consulting, or help with strategy in exchange for Web or multimedia development. There is much value to put on the table in situations where no actual money needs change hands - particularly when there is no budget.

4. Know your neighbors. Be a dynamic component of your industry and market. Open the doors and get outside a little. Meet others in your field and learn their names. See who's doing what, and for whom. Have an open house. Attend a conference or local trade meeting. Join a panel or board. Send press releases. Have lunch or dinner with clients and your peers. Consider joining a good online business networking group, such as the outstanding LinkedIn. And when the world needs you, they'll know who you are and where to find you. Stagnation does not breed energy; it breeds anonymity.

The overarching lessons to be learned center on two common things: the senses of community and of collaboration. And these apply in not just our businesses, but in our everyday lives. Happy Thanksgiving to everyone, and thanks for reading.