Today I read a fascinating post on the first web based mention of Michael Jackson’s untimely death and the subsequent avenues of amplification via the web. Most fascinating to me was the three hour lag between the original x17 posting and Google News pickup of the story in its feed. What does that gap mean for a technology company looking to offer a tool for media buying based not on page context, but on the social context of clicked links and the instantaneous crowds on certain sites or articles.
I am someone who’s interested in how the emerging “Now Web” might play into successful strategies for our clients. For instance, what if I had been able to follow Bit.ly and find out 10 minutes ahead of time that this TMZ story was taking off, with that information could I have made a spot buy on TMZ and owned that ad real estate for the bulk of the traffic spike. Seems to me that would have been an excellent way to get in front of a lot of people, kind of like a momentary Super Bowl. What’s intriguing to me is the idea of doing this on a regular basis across a wide range of traffic spikes (recognizing that this was an extraordinary spike) and figuring out how to maximize the value of my ad inventory using social context.
Twitter, bit.ly, wikipedia and other tools of the now web represent a fascinating new space that marketers must get a handle on. To simply think about these tools as output and distribution is to miss their transformative potential which I believe lies in the derivatives that come from analyzing the underlying data. For anyone interested in this, I hope you’ll drop me a comment so that we can connect.
Today I was pleased to be able to present the Calamity deck to a great crowd at Gravity Summit. Check the Twitter chatter here at the #gravsum hashtag and take a look at the updated examples in the Calamity presentation embedded below. Thanks to Rodney and Beverly for putting together this fantastic event. Calamity Master - Gravity Summit Version
The big concern of those that bemoan the fact that we have massive “too big to fail” organizations is that they pose systemic financial risks in the event that they fail and therefore should not exist. Indeed this is an issue and I hope that we can regulate ourselves in such a way that this can be avoided. However, the big systemic risk as I see it is in terms of innovation. If an organization is too big to fail, then they are too big to innovate as innovation necessarily entails a series of failures to reach the next stage.
In a hyper-competitive world America is risking much more than a financial crisis, we’ve already handled that, what we can’t handle is the destruction of our economic system at the hands of global innovation. We remain world leaders because of an incredibly flexible system that rewards the iterations that teach us from failure. What concerns me is that as government monitored, too big to fail institutions expand market share, a la Fannie and Freddie, we will stop innovating in favor of stabilization.
Now that may seem a proper way forward, but it is absolutely not, we need vicious competition in order to stay on top. In fact, innovation and constant reinvention are the only way to maintain edge in a world that uses global networks and optimized human, capital and production infrastructures to eliminate competitive advantage as fast as possible. While some politicians would love to just bring these rapid cycles of creative destruction to an end through trade policy or regulation, they cannot. The macro trend, presaged by Kevin Kelly and others, is that we are moving away from the Industrial Society to the Network Society as the dominant socio-cultural paradigm. The network will not be denied by roadblocks, as it is built to route around these roadblocks and rapidly maximize the efficiency of these new routes.
Failure is a necessity at the business level if we are to succeed in this 21st century. As we deleverage our institutions to allow for these rapid cycles of failure and innovation let’s keep that in mind. Regulation that does not manage the real systemic risk of slowed innovation cycles represents my true fear of the too big to fail institution.
We’ve been thinking a lot around here about the future of marketing and more broadly the future of consumerism. In a recent post about Margaret Mead I wrote about the power of small innovation. The thinking was that in a world of vast competition, global interconnection and splintering consumer demand, agility is key and big ideas have limited agility. I encourage you to read the post to understand my larger thesis. For today I want to examine the impact of 140 characters and frictionless distribution on the disputed Iranian elections.
Last week Iranian’s went to the polls to vote for their next President. Going into the polls the consensus thinking was that the economy was the prime voting issue and on that issue the incumbent Ahmadinejad was facing a difficult referendum on his economic leadership. When the results of the election were announced hours after Iranians went to the polls it had appeared that Ahmadinejad was the winner by a 2 to 1 margin. That’s when acting small to solve big started to take effect.In the hours after these incongruous results were announced, Iranian moderates started to mass and self-organize via social networks. The Iranian mullahs being aware of the power of the Internet went to work banning sites like CNN and Facebook thereby, in their minds, quelling the uprising’s tools for self-organizing. But like any good entrepreneur these organizers routed around the barrier and began to push information to their peers and to the world through a fire hose of 140 characters tweets.
There are multiple levels to this story no doubt this will renew the new media specialists talk of the power of Twitter and in fact already the Twitter revolution is being recast from the witness to the crash in the Hudson to the tool of the Iranian Revolution (I’ll link to stories about this below). However, I’m not really interested in Twitter per se, I’m much more interested in this thought of amassing small wins to achieve something massive. Each win, in this case a discrete Tweet or video smuggled out by YouTube, is a stone cast at the citadel of tradition and orthodoxy. While alone these stones will not break the walls, millions upon millions of stones eventually will break down an unresponsive Iranian theocracy. Similarly in business we cannot just focus on building massive boulder launchers, but rather on the inspiring and coordinating millions of slingshots to fire on our competitors. That transition will require new ways of leading, new ways of allocating resources and new metrics for success, but it is the way forward and the only way to be competitive. In a hyper-connected and enormously competitive world diverse improvement is the only way to maintain competitive edge. And if you are the citadel, recognize that your competitors will break you down eventually if you do not respond in kind; not with boulders that take out huge swaths, but with as many slingshots as you can amass.
The world is changing and speed and distributed scale are of the essence.
I’m beginning to believe in the midst of this economic malaise, good news travels faster than bad. Today I saw Steve Case’s tweet OF Huffington Post’s coverage OF the Today Show video OF Air Force Master Sgt. Joseph Myers surprising his 10 year old daughter in her classroom upon his return from Iraq. And it ricocheted around Twitterland faster than Susan Boyle’s record deal.
Happy is the new black. The New York Times Style section discussed the return of happiness in culture with the likes of ‘nice’ actors like Paul Rudd. Sears has The Good News Now website which is devoted to things that are uplifting. Today’s post has a great grandmother who is graduating from HighSchool. And Big Spaceship’s post ‘C’mon Get Happy discusses Ian Fitzpatrick’s project The Optimist Conspectus where he queries and records what people are optimistic about with wonderful tag clouds that soften the blow of 9.4% unemployment.
The point is these stories lean into the prevailing wind, which I’ll summarize as ‘In these difficult economic times”. They remind us that happiness needs to be in your culture, your values and in your business model. Because after all, relentless optimism is the DNA of innovation. It’s the sheer pursuit to see the world in a different and better way. Innovation needs caretaking by people with not only remarkable ideas, but an indestructible spirit. Maybe it’s a recovering market, or our collective boredom with misery. But a wave of happiness is enveloping the culture. That alone is worth a smile.
I have an article in this month’s STRATEGY & BUSINESS entitled ‘The Trouble With Brands’. I sat down with Editor Art Kleiner from Booz & Co to discuss brands, brand valuation and the overall challenges with guiding brands in today’s volatile environment.
While this article delves on my thesis work in my book, The Brand Bubble, we also explore the impact of branding in today’s recessionary climate. In our analysis we found that brand value now makes up almost one-third of the market capitalization of The S&P 500 companies. Therefore, the CEO must understand their brands are an increasingly large source of the promises they are making of future earnings to shareholders. It follows then that marketing should not be thought of as a cost, but rather a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders.
The 21st Century CEO is the ‘brand manager in chief’, by focusing on brand building by bringing the consumer into the center of their organization and creating an environment where everyone is thinking about marketing, not just the marketing department. The world’s most innovative and increasingly valuable companies are doing just that. And they’re positioning themselves well for the upturn as a result.
“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed people can change the world; indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”
Margaret Mead’s famous phrase has become a standard bearer for well meaning citizens bent on creating solutions to the problems of the world. However, in the Industrial Age these agents of change were constrained in their ability to gain rapid distribution of their solutions, so real change took years or even generations.
It is that time frame which informs a belief, as described in this NY Times article, that government and institution led macro innovation is the key to overcoming the myriad challenges our world faces. Industrial logic would suggest that trillion dollar problems, must have trillion dollar solutions and trillion dollar solutions come from big investments in big ideas. The first issue with this industrial logic is that we have no idea what the big idea is, only what the big problem is. The second issue is that big problem’s are agglomerations of little problems, however institutions can only focus their marketing and strategy on the BIG problem. That focus undermines the problem solving.
Which leads me to Chris Anderson’s piece on the era of the conglomerate passing and in its wake thousands of small, entrepreneurial companies innovating to solve problems that the large companies cannot. Chris’ insight is that large companies are struggling to understand how a former competitive advantage, economy of scale, had been turned on its head to become a disadvantage. Where scale was once a strength, now it is a shackle linked by quarterly earnings, risk aversion and zero sum management that prevents organizations from solving the small problems, that reveal big solutions. While there is no doubt that big business is facing challenging conditions to execute their plans, it is by no means impossible to execute successfully within this new paradigm, just look at Google, Apple, Amazon or even P&G, who are executing successfully in the networked economy by transitioning their operating, forecasting and communications units to allow for micro-innovation within their organizations.
Using network logic we understand that a big problem is simply an interconnected series of small problems, with solutions that interconnect to reveal solutions to large problems. The big leap organizations must make is to stop talking and start doing. This transition in thinking from leverage to community is a function of the Great Unwinding of our economy. The Great Unwinding is our economy peeling back the layers of excess and facade, to reveal the foundational truths of our businesses and ourselves. The outcome of this financial and psychic deleveraging is a profitable and fulfilling business and consumer renaissance. This renaissance is driven by a network economy that encourages experimentation, accepts failure and connects the solutions that allow us to think small, to solve big.
Nat Torkingtonwrites that “Scaling is not innovating”, innovation happens on the edge where scale doesn’t matter and uses the multiplier effect of networked innovation to scale at the appropriate time. It’s time for us as executives, marketers and customers to acknowledge this dawning reality and to harness our entrepreneurial spirit to solve problems as a community.
I was honored to speak at the El Sol a marketing festival in San Sebastian this past Friday. Here is the presentation I gave, which is the Calamity presentation with a few new examples added in the last few weeks. As always I encourage you to follow me on twitter @johngerzema.
Thanks to all the folks at El Sol for putting on a great festival in an amazing place. I look forward to continuing the conversation.
I got a chance yesterday to read an interesting post in the NY Times about the psychic impact of uncertainty. Which led to a reflection on the marketing message du jour, which is sympathy to the uncertainty, and how that messaging is off the mark. The Great Recession is the cause of plenty of consumer angst and it is hardly over, but your business was not built, with few exceptions, on assuaging anxiety. Uncertainty seeks safe harbor in the known.
Sympathy is important, but at this point it is expected. In order to differentiate, you cannot rely upon spiraling discounting or macro-economic messaging. You have to find the core value of your business, dig deep and find what it is that matters most about your brand. You might find that deep meaning within your employees, you might find that in a conversation with a spouse or child.
The consumer is deleveraging and stripping away the layers of material leverage that they had used to define themselves in the bubble age. These consumers are turning to different social signals to define their worth, their social standing and their happiness. But they are not defining themselves as their objects anymore…they are defining themselves by their community. Therein lies an opportunity for brands to connect, not through sympathy, or discount, but through unlevered brand truth and the community of evangelists that form around those truths. As Umair Haque wrote yesterday, companies need to think about how they can build thick power into their brands. A power that relies on the network, not a single, highly levered node, to showcase the strength of the brand and build competitive advantage.
Apple is an easy company to highlight, but let’s do it anyway. iPhone’s remain expensive and the growth of such a product is not entirely expected in these turbulent times and yet Apple continues to sell units and gain market share on the back of their core strength, community. Apple is using the strength of community in their marketing, by highlighting not the iPhone, but the apps that make the iPhone special. This summer, they’ll introduce new software, that is meant to increase the utility of the Apps.
What is your product’s app store, what’s special? Help other’s tell your story, yes, times are tough, but consumers know that already. What’s special about you, don’t lie, don’t fudge and let the community participate. Dig deep and express your essence to the world through your marketing, whether it’s a 30 second spot or a Twitter account. The World is going through a great unwinding, businesses and consumers are stripping away debt both financial and operational and seeking that differentiating foundation from which to build their future. For consumers it’s their unique personalities and communities, for businesses it’s their products and employees. Now is the time to build your iconic brand.
I saw in this morning’s NY Times an article about a new ad campaign from Starbucks who is fighting to regain the specialness that made it a remarkable entrepreneurial story, a marketing case study and an icon.
As I write about what made Starbucks special, I can’t help but think that those same characteristics could be used to describe McDonalds, Starbucks’ rapidly emerging competitor in the coffee beverage category. McDonalds, like Starbucks now, faced its own brand devaluation that culminated in the early 2000’s, but McDonald’s regained its swagger through disciplined operations, simplified product offerings and protecting its main vulnerability (e.g. Unhealthy). That swagger lead to the showdown we have today with Starbucks’ as each vies for control of the lucrative breakfast market.
Let me first state, I think that Starbucks’ greatest challenge is to transition consumers to a more sustainable product, which in my mind is the coffee, espresso and latte’s that are at the core of the coffeehouse experience. But food items and real estate detracted from that vision. (Do you want to look at a tuna sandwich at 8am, or hang out a place that has less square feet than a Manhattan apartment?) Starbucks’ greatest asset is its original conception of Starbucks as “The Third Place“. In the past few years you’ve seen a drift from the Third Place as the core marketing tool, to a series of product driven innovations that in the fat years drove profits per store up and satisfied impatient investors, but what was lost was that focus upon the initial innovation which was, how to scale up the feel, sounds and smells of the coffee house. Ironically this was McDonald’s problem in the mid-90’s with a series of swings and misses, namely McDlt, McRib and Arch Deluxe.
Starbucks’ is in a challenging spot, but when the economy brightens, will the McDonald’s shine wear off? If the Starbucks management team aligns their product and messaging around what makes Starbucks truly special (the experience) rather than be drawn into a fight on McDonald’s turf, I think you can expect a return to excellence and in fact we may call Starbucks the turnaround story of the 2010’s. Starbuck’s should look at Coca-Cola, who after been lured into the taste challenge against Pepsi, regained its composure and its values and remembered it was the ‘real thing’.
Where's the Beef(jerky)? Because of ConAgra plant explosion, U.S. faces a Slim Jim shortage http://bit.ly/grDjGZ
A 'Zen' for our times? Surprise bestseller 'Shop Class' explores the virtues of manual labor http://bit.ly/eBNWN
What friends are for: Facebook: With its leadership as an online social network more secure, Mark Zuckerberg's c.. http://bit.ly/4qcHvj
About John Gerzema
John Gerzema is Chief Insights Officer for Young & Rubicam Group. One of the early founders of account planning in American advertising, John has guided brand strategies to global business and creative acclaim. Read more...