Richard Merrick

The real deal

For the last few months I have been detecting  a small, but real, increase in the instances where people seem to be rejecting the faux side of marketing. The appeal of automated telephone answering services that tell us our call is very important have long been a joke, but now we seem to be getting more substance.
Relationships are 1:1, and those between our companies, products and customers no different. If we treat them as a homogenous mass, they will treat us as a commodity. When production costs for most items have got as low as they seem likely to get, these intangible items become critical. Those brands that have lowered production costs by outsourcing, but kept prices high through marketing hype seem likely to get catch a cold. They have exported IP and "know how" at the very point where east is overtaking west on consumption. The real "magic" - the history, provenance, people and personality of the brand have been reduced to profit centres and marketing spends, and the brand becomes a zombie.
I did think I was in a minority thinking this, but articles like this may mean I'm (happily) not as isolated as I thought.
In the end, at a time where we are all truly visbile and connected, and accountable due to al the communication we have, we better be real. it's our only real asset.
Many years ago, Barry Staw at Berkeley coined the term threat rigidity effect. In essence, his thesis was that under pressure, busineses stick with what they know and are good at, reject what they are uncomfortable with, and man the barricades. I suspect this is the case with many leading brands, as they struggle to maintain indefensible margins bloated by undeclared outsourcing. Trouble is, they can man the barriers all they like, but they are on a road to certain failure. If they are not what they say they are, they will be found out.

Trust

Last night went to see Malcolm Gladwell talking at Birmingham Town Hall. He does have the knack of stating the obvious, except it 's rarely obvious. Relevant to the stream of this discussion though was the conclusion to his talk. His theme was the battle of Chancellorsrville in the Civil War - the one that Robert E Lee was supposed to lose, but didn't - mainly because of Joseph Hooker's overconfidence based on capabilities, assets and prior record - despite the fact all the warning s signs had been seen and recognised by the troops. Gladwell applied the comparison to our beloved bankers.

His conclusion? - in times of crisis, experts needs humility, not confidence. If you have an organisation predicated on trust, you might listen respectfully to somebody who says the emperor has no clothes.

Priorities

As I drove into work this morning, I wondered what might happen if we started to look at important things, rather than sensational things.

·         Hans Rosling has posted a thought provoking short video that highlights our view of Swine Flu(which gets over 8000 press mentions per death) , versus TB (which gets 0.1 mentions)

·         The press is saturated with MP’s expenses, whilst unemployment at 2.2m is forecast to over 3m, with the young most severely affected.

·         Post (or at the current stage) in the Banking crisis, credit is at best flowing like treacle.

·         Risk aversion is so endemic, that any potential risk gets magnified and leveraged. In the supply chain I deal with, every stage in the chain (from raw material to retail) sets its own requirements and strategy for things as diverse as product safety to ethical standards, with each party’s lawyers trying to lay off liability elsewhere. The end result is a torrent of administration and cost that adds no value whatsoever.

The list could go on. And on. We are being seduced into a strange sense of priorities.

I wondered what might happen if we chose to leverage things with potential – ideas, people, ventures and used the money we are spending on propping up obsolescent brands and businesses to grow the new areas our children can take advantage of.

Thinking outside the tick box.

There is an excellent article by John Kay in today's Financial Times that got me thinking.
At present we are faced with a host of issues where box ticking as he describes is paramount - it's a great way for people and businesses to side step responsibility, and feel they are safe. They are of course, wrong on many counts.
It also highlights the opportunities for those who can think, rather than tick. The market opportunities post recession, post swine flu, post fear are real and vibrant - but they do not fit the boxes people are ticking.
If we trust our judgement, experience and instict, and above all look at our customers and markets with fresh eyes and a mindset that is focused on their needs, and with an intent to help them, the opportunities become clear. Of course there are risks - when haven't there been? - but in a climate when your competitors are hiding in the long grass, and ticking boxes, if you show interest and intent your customers may well follow you - even if it's only out of curiosity. But it becomes a conversation, and a deeper relationship. You win.

New Organisational Paradigms

I've been witnessing today, at first hand, how fundamentally and fast things are going to change. I'm a big fan of Seth Godin, and have been a member of his Triiibes experiment since the outset.

Today, I picked up an interesting thread on the changing nature of organisations. In the past, I would have read, filed, reflected and moved on. Today, I made an observation, and found myself in a virtual, but very rewarding conversation with people whom I've never met, but who gave selflessly of their time and brain and helped me develop my thinking.

Thank you, Elizabeth Teklinski and Ed Brenegar for taking such an interest. This blog feels very underdeveloped by comparison to yours, but I find it challenging and positive.

The overiding thought is, we did this today for interest. The motive was curiosity and generosity. If the same sentiments applied at a fraction of the level inside a conventional organisation, it would make a world of difference.

Which is why I think conventional organisations have a real problem. Opting in to virtual working, with minimal control is unlikely to be an option, but a necessity.

Ken Robinson - the element

Right after I posted last, I fell on this, which complements my last post.  I'm a huge fan of the RSA (and a fellow) and love what they are trying to do.

Selective deafness

Picking on bankers and politicians is easy meat at the moment. Their arrogance and apparent inability to restore some of their shattered credibility by listening, and acknowledging that there might be some substance for the scorn being shown them amazing.
But this mornng i realised why. Their systens are programmed to make getting effective feedback impossible. I received an automated call from my bank, querying a transaction my wife had made while travelling overseas. This is a beneficial and welcome service, and should reinforce the relationship we have with them. However, their total reliance on automated call systems shredded that possibility. It took ten minutes, a web search, and some creative answers to voice recognition systems to get to talk to a human. The human was friendly, but totally restricted in authority, and unable to do anything of any practical use. My wife will now have to talk to their international robot in the middle of the night in a time zone far far away. We have been with the bank for over 30 years, but I suspect it will not make 31.
But the point of this is not a diatribe at the banks - as I say, they are just too easy a target. The thought that struck me was that many of us are in glass houses, and have to be wary of throwing stones. In my own businesses we do not use any form of automated systems. The phone is always answered by humans, and our mobiles are given to all our customers, to be answered at any time.
But what about our web sites and other direct contact substitutes? Do they behave like the banks, and make it clear that we want to do anything other than talk to our customers? As one fascinated by the potential of technology, it came as a real and immediate reminder that people do business with people, not systems, and that the banks ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory is not isolated.
I'm reviewing all my points of contact. Now. On a bank holiday Saturday. It is that important.

Community

I made an interesting discovery earlier this week. In trying to do something I believe in, I got it wrong. The lesson was in the response of those I was working with. They understood my intent. It did not stop them making their points and criticisms, but it was their intent in doing it that shook me. It was entirely supportive, and I learned things I would not have done otherwise.

My point is simple. The same applies to our products. if our story is true, and our intent is transparent, we can get it wrong, and grow as a result. No risk, no learning, no gain.

But choose your communities well. Be prepared to work in their interest, in the knowledge that yours is inextricably bound to it.

The power of story

As those who read me know, I am convinced of the power of good storytelling to engage audiences on difficult topics. Found this a very instructuve set of slides from a great site slideshare. Worth a look.

Stories and permission marketing

Brand Personalities and Mission Statements are mass market. They convey a uniform image that is supposed to be universally attractive. Like a Marks and Spencer suit. you do not get to tailor, take the bits you like and leave the bits you don't.

Stories are different. They are 3rd person. you can watch from a distance, and choose which bits you want to identifiy with, and which bits you don't. You give the story permission to influence you. It's a unique designer suit - you have the only one of its kind. And you can build a wardrobe.

Why look like somebody else, or follow the herd, when you can be you.

Stories, not Brands.