Job’s legacy while seeming to be about innovation really is about his ability to see a good idea and make it better, much better.  And for that he was supremely talented and supremely right.   Gladwell’s depiction of this is crystal clear as is his depiction of Jobs’ tweaking methods, which is where our 21st century mini-messiah went extremely wrong.  He tweaked by shoving, demanding, demonizing and humiliating people.  Getting it right, as he defined right, was worth any cost.  And perhaps the most alarming part is that our culture has come to celebrate and revere the consequences of that abuse while overlooking the abuse itself.

Imagine any other CEO, military leader or even college coach who belittled and brutalized all who worked for them?  How long would people stand for it?  Apparently as long as the perceived value of the right exceeds the actual value of the wrong.

Related articles

• In Praise of “Tweakers” (coordinationproblem.org)
• Steve Jobs More ‘Tweaker’ Than Inventor, Gladwell Says (inquisitr.com)
• Malcolm Gladwell On Steve Jobs’ Perfectionism: The Genius Is In The ‘Tweak’ (mediaite.com)
• Malcolm Gladwell Gets Steve Jobs Wrong (forbes.com)
• Getting Steve Jobs Wrong (daringfireball.net)

Mike

Tangential as it may seem, the point is to bring to light the importance of recognizing what delight means and then recognizing the people and things that deliver them. Affecting delight is a key driver of business satisfaction and brand loyalty; however it’s a state of existence for business that requires constant attention.

So enough of the delight soapbox. It’s story time.

I don’t want to have to wear fancy gym clothes, but the truth of my life (and likely self confidence) is that the days of grabbing a tshirt and gender neutral mesh shorts are over. There are too many mirrors. Too many people I know. (Lest we forget the occasion appearance by Ryan Reynolds or his mini-friend Mila Kunis.) Not to mention, all the people who should look terrible enough to motive me are clad in incredibly figure flattering outfits. Not gym clothes. Outfits. It’s a nightmare. An expensive nightmare. And just when you imagine it can’t get worse, you go to shop for these gym outfits and find out that the stores selling theses wares combining the lighting and mirrors of your gym with a confined space and Lycra.

And the stores, save the banner few like Lululemon and Lucy, don’t seem to acknowledge a problem. Despite selling to a female market, they are largely run like sporting goods stores. Expertise, but very little understanding of human psychology.

So imagine my surprise… no, delight, when I entered the CitySports on Boylston Street in Boston to discover that they had undergone a rather extensive remodel/reorganization to create a mini “boutique” within the clothing department. Rather than rack after rack of pants, they’d created a simple wall system (very similar to the kind Lululemon employs). You could look at the style, read about the fit and length, and then grab a size. Everything about it was so… reasonable. They installed two new fitting rooms exclusively for the new area– big fitting rooms. The lighting and colors didn’t highlight how ridiculous I looked, but rather made me feel like I could sit down on the handy bench and think about what other things I wanted to try on. It was elated. I emailed friends about it…from the fitting room.

After reflecting on it for sometime, I realized that even though I acknowledged it was a smart business move, it felt like it was made in the interest of the client. I genuinely felt that someone with good sense and a good head on their shoulders made a decision to do what was right for all of us ladies, and the result added a tremendous amount of value to my experience and perception of CitySports.

To come full circle, CitySports found a way to create delight. For five years I lived around the corner and while it’s a lovely store, there’s never been anything delightful about it. It’s a good place to buy the athletic and outdoorsy things I sometimes need. But that experiential tweak changed the game. I want to go back. It’s now part of my go-to inner circle for new apparel.

So many businesses turn to marketing to solve a problem based on a set experience, but today’s marketing is about so much more than that. It’s about understanding the critical importance of delivering value and affecting customer delight and then making that experience known and desired by others.

Marketing isn’t a thing, it’s a psychology of business interaction and outreach.

There is a constant conversation taking place between marketers, strategists, creatives, and brands about the differences between branding for B2B and branding for B2C. There is the debate about color palette. (When in doubt, go blue!) What colors feel safe? What tone feels “business-y”? Is it okay to be serious and be clever?

To us, the truth lies in answering a question different from whether you’re a B2B company or a B2C company, but rather one that focuses on the individuals comprising the Bs and the Cs. Chris has often been heard remarking about the “magic consumer transition” that we sometimes believe takes place while commuting from home to work. The underlying consideration there is whether we truly do think that a CEO thinks or responds differently to words and visuals whether he’s behind a mahogany desk or taking a call from his (or her) deck on a sunny Saturday.

Focus for a moment on social media and the effect it’s had on the formality of our communication. There are no longer ivory towers or hallowed halls, and the businesses who continue to subscribe to this method of engagement (or lack of) are quickly losing share. As people we value warmth and competency as much in our business interactions as we do in our more colloquial, consumer lives. You may be drawn to the stability of specific bank, insurance company, or institution, but your experience is determined by the individuals you encounter within that organization, whether it be a teller, mortgage broker, financial planner, teacher, professor, or administrator. Individually they may present as buttoned-up business people, but behind the pleats and tweeds they are human beings who have a significant impact on the image and engagement of a brand.

Increasingly, we find that consumer loyalty and advocacy is built upon the relationships to individuals within an organization. Restaurants provide good food and a charming ambiance, but it’s the chef who stops by or the bar tender who chats with you while you wait for your dinner date who create that experience. There is no aspect of big M marketing that isn’t influenced by the blurred line between B and C. The way you position, message, and iterate product should focus on the one thing we all share: being human. Creating value for customers– both in communication and product– hinges upon understanding human nature above the nature of business.

There is no debate as to whether the rules are more stringent when you cross into B2B, but it has less to do with how people make decisions and more to do with red tape and legal constraints. The brand emerges when you find the humanity within your audience and then craft a story that appeals to them and passes the “business appropriate” test. It’s then the job of the organization to empower employees to embrace this balance and create experiences that are at once true to the brand and relevant to the customer.

Anecdotally, I live around the corner from one of the finest hotel chains in the world, the Taj. The brand stands for luxury and unparalleled experience. And while for guests this manifests in exquisite amenities and superb customer service, it’s adapted to meet the needs of the friends and neighbors of the hotel, as well. There’s no caviar offered as I pass by, but on a rainy day the staff is always ready with an umbrella, or a bottle of water when I jog by after working out. And this morning, after trying fruitlessly to hail a cab, it was a ride to work in their car service. So while I may not have the opportunity to lay my head upon those delightful pillows, or experience the luxury of tubs the size of my apartment, the luxury is tailored for me by a staff who knows my life and does everything they can to make it that much more luxurious.

Related articles

• Which Is The Best Business Model For Your Startup – B2B Or B2C? (entrepreneurs-journey.com)
• Why does B2B customer experience get the short shrift? (customerthink.com)

It takes a certain confidence to be an entrepreneur. You’re brute-forcing something into the world that didn’t exist, in the face of indifference, cynicism, or even opposition. Not for the faint of heart.

The hardest part of a startup for me is that transition from where you have an inner circle of people excited about your idea, to where you connect with the real opportunity – what some call the point of “Product/Market Fit.” In that valley you’re trying to balance the conviction required to will something into existence with the need for openness and flexibility in “corrupting” your vision with feedback from the actual marketplace. Tricky stuff.

Working closely with a couple of serially successful entrepreneurs over the last few weeks, I’ve observed a pattern in their behavior. To a man, they are more concerned with getting rich than they are with being right.

We all have baggage. Among mine is that I like to be right. I really like to be right. And I’m right a lot. Which is nice.

Except when I’m not. And I’ve been wrong about some biggies in my swings at the plate.

Great entrepreneurs don’t care about being right… at least about whether they were right when they decided whatever they decided last week, or last month, or last year. They defend those choices in the manner of good dinner conversation… strong opinions, weakly held. Their focus is on doing what it takes now to give their businesses the best possible chance of success. I think there’s something in that for the rest of us.

I’m reading a book right now called The Power of Now, by an author Jeff Bussgang recommended in a recent blog post, Eckhart Tolle. One of the ideas that’s really stuck to me is that the past and the future are just “illusions of the mind.” They are fabrications, not real, and not worth concerning ourselves with. There is only now… only the moment we are in, and the choice of what we think, feel, or do in this moment.

It’s good advice in life, especially for entrepreneurs.

Related articles

• Why Venture Capitalists Invest In Pigs, Not Chickens (onstartups.com)
• Bussgang: Why You Should Eliminate Titles at Start-ups (askthevc.com)
• Entrepreneur Corner: Customer tell signs and Reid Hoffman’s rules for success (venturebeat.com)
• Running and Eckhart Tolle (momshomerun.blogspot.com)
• Entrepreneur Success: It’s Not Always About You (startupprofessionals.com)

Here’s the full video of his presentation:

He left attendees with some time-tested advice about the value of being imperative: “all four of these things [relevance of offering, clarity of message, consistency of experience, and driving of engagement] must come together to create an imperative relationship with your customers or your prospective customers, and really the translation of all that is about getting to love. It’s about getting to a place where your customers don’t just buy what you’re selling, they actually promote what you’re selling to others just like them.”

Related articles:

http://masschallenge.org/blog/bootcamp-day-2-recap-points-clarity

http://bostinnovation.com/2011/06/30/inside-look-at-masschallenge-bootcamp-2011-photos-mcbootcamp/

Related articles

• One Simple Thing (talkofthecampus.wordpress.com)
• Social Business Bootcamp for Startups (oneforty.com)
• Are You Ready For The Next Social Media Marketing Boot Camp? (socialtimes.com)
• Former students pumping it up with MassChallenge (paulgsilva.wordpress.com)

It was a 101-type session, reinforcing the fundamentals of social media for business:

• It’s about building relationships,
• It starts with the delivery of content worthy of your target’s attention,
• It continues with an effort to help and connect people,
• Doing so builds social equity,
• That same social equity becomes an asset you can leverage in ways that deliver tangible business results.

Some entertaining tidbits and anecdotes were shared along the way, conducted beautifully by the masterful and golden voiced Anthony Silva.

Click below for video of the event, and please let me know what you think.

Related articles

• Social Media Day 2011 (mcnakblog.com)
• Social Media: a “Mission Critical” Solution for your Contact Center (avaya.com)
• Does Social Media Shape Our Lives More Than God Does? (godspace.wordpress.com)
• Happy Social Media Day – June 30th (projectmanagementessentials.wordpress.com)

As a person who both loves and believes in the power of thinking differently and the creation of distinct yet simple strategy to solve virtually any problem, I have been asking myself “Any ideas of how to fix all this?” I am pretty sure that hoping won’t work, that waiting is for wimps, and that delusion always ends up under-delivering…

So what about this:

Two economic theories merged as one.

It is believed that there are three variables to encourage a high performing economy, captured in what is called the TFP: Total Factor of Productivity (see I did remember something from business school!): the availability of capital, the quality and availability of an educated workforce, and an efficient infrastructure (technology and support services). That’s theory one. Theory two is my own: That which is not measured cannot be improved upon. It’s true of weight loss and it’s true of economic performance. The problem with the current measures of economic performance and measuring our country’s TFP is that they are too macro. They are measures which do not point to clear, actionable ways to improve (other than controlling the money supply).

What we really should be measuring more effectively (read specifically) is the performance of the real contributors to our economic viability: corporations and the people who work within them. We should be looking at the TFP of individual corporations and organizations (including not-for-profits), the TFP of their leadership, and the TFP of their employees. If we established different and specific measures of performance that focused on every entity’s capacity to create tangible value from resources allocated to it (capital), its ongoing effort to further its skills and abilities through formal education, and its efficient (or not) utilization of the tools and resources available, imagine the difference we might make. Another way of saying all this: What if we got more rigorous about how we measure our performance, and particularly the performance of white collar workers? Because the ability to have a higher performing economy is predicated on higher performing companies and governments which is predicated on higher performing leadership and employees…

As example, the formal measures of most white collar workers’ “productivity” are non-existent. If you show up, keep your head down, dutifully attend meetings, and do something every now and then, you’re being productive. There is little if any measurement of how much you have learned, how much you have created, or how proficient you have become at using the system or the tools. Another example is the small business sector. Many economists have declared that the GDP contribution from small businesses is essential to turning this mess around. If so, shouldn’t we be measuring the sectors’ TFP? And shouldn’t we be more focused as a government about making sure we are enabling that TFP: providing small businesses with the capital they need, delivering the education on how to run a small business, and creating the infrastructure to enable it all?

Now I know people will say that it’s all being worked on. But it’s being worked on without clear and specific measures of what constitutes improvement. There is no Small Business Education Index. Most companies don’t even have non-financial specific measures for the return on most investments (including marketing communications…) or an agreement on how much (and how) they want employees to learn over time.

It’s all akin to us saying our country needs to lose weight but not pinpointing who exactly, not declaring specific goals, not getting on the scale regularly to assess our collective and individual weight loss and not taking the actions necessary to maintain or improve on it.
We’ll just remain fat. And 80% of life-threatening diseases can be attributed to being fat.

My next post will be focused on applying this economic construct of TFP and more relevant measurement to my industry and agency. Stay tuned.

A few weeks back I saw an old movie called “He’s Just Not That Into You”.  Not a great movie but a really cold reminder that if your lover doesn’t call you/call you back, he or she probably doesn’t love you that much. You are just not relevant enough.

The economic downturn has turned the heat up on business relevance. In good economic times, “interesting” can suffice as relevant. Companies and consumers will buy your products or services because they can afford to, because what you offer is interesting, mildly helpful, feels good, whatever. A great example of that are research expenditures.  Big brands spend gobs of money on interesting research.  They don’t actually do anything with the research, it doesn’t guide decision making, there’s no “return” expected, it’s just interesting.

But when the economy softens, the definition of relevance hardens.  It shifts from “interesting” to “influencing”, i.e. the investment has got to connect in some, even if indirect, way to an action or benefit.  Management starts asking the question, what are we getting for this?  The consumer begins contemplating what life will be life without that pair of shoes.  But even then, there’s some latitude on how consumers and businesses assess the return, on how relevant the relevance is.

Now, serve up an economic setback like the one we’re still mired in, and the definition of relevance becomes rock hard. Relevance = Essential. Essential = our business cannot operate without the benefit of this product, service (or employee). Essential = my personal life will suffer in tangible forms if I don’t buy this thing (or call my girlfriend back).

The definition of relevance as essential puts intense pressure on all of us but I think it’s a healthy pressure.  Good economies delude us.  They make us think that the value equation (and relationship) is solid and secure when in fact it is not.  Our capacity to grow as individuals and companies, through good times and bad, is purely predicated on our ability to be essential to whomever we serve (or love).  So I encourage you to ask yourself the tough question: Are they returning your phone call?

And if not, you know what to do.

The formulation we use includes the following elements:

• target – an actionable universe of buyers,
• segment – the key, predisposing attribute of likely buyers within the target,
• brand – a name you call yourself,
• category – a competitive frame that helps the buyer understand what you do,
• distinction – what makes you unique within that competitive frame, and
• proof – perceived evidence that your claim of distinction is true.

String those things together, and you get a blurb that looks like this:

For [target] who are [segment], [brand] provides the [category] with [distinction] because of [proof.]

Examples from established brands:

• - For drivers who value automotive performance, BMW provides luxury vehicles that deliver joy through German engineering.
• - For people around the world, Coca-Cola is the soft drink that is the real thing since 1886.
• - For industrial manufacturers who are challenged to differentiate, BASF is the raw materials supplier that makes products better through engineering depth.

Can you articulate the hypothesis of your startup – the core value proposition on which you’re betting your livelihood – in the form of a positioning statement like that? If so, can you get your team to agree on it? And if so… Does it hold water?

Give it a shot. Worst case, you’re likely than not to get some clarity from the attempt.